dear authors,

Your manuscript has now been seen by three reviewers, and all of them find your data interesting and worth publishing. I would like to compliment you on your efforts to address all issues that were raised by the reviewers. However, the sheer number of comments and the technical nature of some of your answers suggest to me that it's good idea to have another quick review round. You also provide some new, important background info (e.g. figure R2-1) which would benefit from review assessment. As such, I invite you to resubmit a revised version of the manuscript with the suggested changes incorporated. While revising your manuscript, I would like to highlight the following issue:

The content of your answer to the first issue raised by reviewer 1 isn't really reflected in the proposed change to the manuscript. The "wider perspective" you refer to in your answer seems important in articulating the value of your findings, and could be discussed in more detail in your manuscript.
On a minor note: I agree with the review comment on the bottom of page 9 that your conclusion could easily be misinterpreted: ‘In sum, our results indicate that N2O can be effectively reduced through the replacement of fertilizer N with N from BNF.’ The word “replacement” might suggest that the amounts of external N (additional BNF in clover plot vs. organic fertilizer input) are the same in both treatment. This doesn’t seem to be the case. Lower N2O emissions due to lower N inputs aren’t all that surprising, so the reader might wonder “why not just cut fertilizer rates”? Perhaps you can rephrase this sentence to avoid confusion? The final sentence of your abstract states your conclusions more clearly.

best regards,
Kees Jan van Groenigen

dear authors,

Your revised manuscript has now been seen by two of the original reviewers, and both of them agree that this new version has improved substantially. Reviewer #2 has a minor editorial suggestion. I agree with the suggestion, and incorporating this change doesn't require another review round (hence "technical corrections"). I would like to compliment you on your attention to detail in addressing the reviewers' concerns.

best regards,
Kees Jan van Groenigen