Dear Xuefei and co-authors,
Your manuscript has received two detailed and constructive reviews, which reached somewhat contrasting conclusions on your manuscript, however. Reviewer #1 is in general positive and suggests moderate revisions which are quite clearly articulated. Reviewer #2 in contrast has a number of strong concerns which he/she feels compromises the potential of the dataset, in particular regarding (i) the data gap filling, (ii) the discussion on the relative contribution of water-air gas exchange to total fluxes, and (iii) the parameterization of diffusive fluxes across the water-air interface (Cole & Caraco 1998).
Taking into consideration the diverging recommendations, I would like to propose to prepare an adequately revised version of your manuscript, that incorporates the reviewers’ suggestions, and to take particular efforts to address the concerns of Ref #2. Note that equation (7) in the original ms should be corrected (uses Fwater x fwater twice, instead of Fwater, fwater, Fveg and fveg).
A revision is likely to be sent out for review by one of the original reviewers, or to an independent additional reviewer.
With best regards
Steven Bouillon

Dear dr Li,

Thank you for your detailed reply to both referee reports, and for your revised version.
Review report #1 was favorable to start with, and I feel their suggestions and points of concern were well addressed. For the 2nd review report, most of the concerns have been incorporated to the extent possible, e.g. the issue of gap filling is addressed in the revised version with the additional information provided in the supplement; this is transparent and the reader can make their own appreciation of the merits and limitations. I do feel that some more notes on the gas transfer velocity parameterization. I understand your rationale to stick with the Cole & Caraco model, but feel that a summary of the information you provide in your author replies would be worth including in the manuscript itself; this will strengthen the rationale to use their model and at the same time provide some more background to the reader what the limitations are and why these were not straightforward to address with your dataset.

Two small additional notes from my side:
-the total phosphorus data: you mention these were "calculated based on turbidity data" and refer to Valkama et al. (2017). I would suggest to replace 'calculated' by 'estimated'. I assume the data you use are in fact the same as those of the latter publication, and the same holds for the nitrate data ? If that is the case: avoid confusion and make it clear that these nitrate and TP data were published earlier and were taken from Valkama et al. (2017).
-Figure 7 caption: subscript in 'FCH4'

Best regards