Dear Authors:

Thank you for making open discussion.
The two referees gave overall positive evaluations to your manuscript, such that it has ‘good’ scientific quality and ‘fair’ or ‘good’ scientific significance. The referee comments and your replies are constructive, and the revisions you proposed would surely improve clarity and comprehensiveness of the manuscript.
In terms of the manuscript length, I found some potential conflicts between detailed methodological descriptions and brevity for readability. As recommended by Referee #1, the manuscript could be shortened by editing ‘mercilessly’. On the other hand, including additional figures and tables with corresponding statements may make it longer. Also, Referee #2 recommended moving several figures in the appendix to the main text. Therefore, I recommend the authors to carefully re-construct the contents among the main text, appendix (just after the main text), and supplements (in a separate file). In my opinion, the supplements can include some results that support those in the main text (i.e. ‘complementary information’), although important interpretations should be given in the main text. The appendix is expected to contain, in general, additional methodological descriptions (e.g., a series of equations and parameter tables) that help readers who have keen interest in the methodology used. Note that this may not be a strict rule, because a few additional results can appear in the appendix.
The manuscript would be re-considered after major revisions, and I am looking forward to receiving a revised manuscript.

Dear authors:
Thank you for providing the revised manuscript.
I thought that you did a good job to fulfill conflicting requests: shortening for improving readability and extension for including additional data (e.g., new Figures 4, 5, 6 and 10) and corresponding descriptions. The creation of a supplement file may help shortening the main text body. On the open discussion, I found no additional comments to your replies. Finally, I recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication after a technical amendment.

Technical amendment
Page 29 Line 32: Move the record of “Kreis Pinnneberg, 2004” to Line 20.
Page 31 and 32: Please apply subscripts to CO2 and CH4 in these pages.