Dear Authors:

Thank you for providing your responses to the referee comments.
Both referees evaluated your manuscript positively, although such a model modification by including nonstructural carbohydrates has been attempted in previous studies. As you responded, it is recommended to emphasize the importance of the present study in the revised manuscript. I confirmed that you replied each of the referee comments appropriately, leading to higher clarity and readability of the manuscript. For example, addition of statistical metrics (R2 and RMSE) as recommended by the referee will enable readers to find out the model improvement in a quantitative manner. Your justification of not-conducting a transitional historical simulation may be still controversial, but I agree that such additional works would be remained for the future by use of increasing amount of observational data. Finally, I conclude that the manuscript needs major revision before being accepted for publication.

Dear Authors:
Thank you for providing your response to reviewers’ comments and the revised manuscript. The referees gave positive evaluations to your manuscript and recommended moderate revision before acceptance for publication. I studied all comments and your replies and found that the manuscript would be much clearer and insightful for vegetation model researchers (and possibly general readers). Both referees recommended adding model descriptions (e.g., respiration part) and metrics to the comparison with observations, and you responded properly. Also, I appreciate your addition of references for previous NSC-implemented models. On the other hand, I barely agree with your justification about the simulation of equilibrium state; I expect you do this in a forthcoming study.
Finally, I conclude that the manuscript would be acceptable for publication.