Dear Dr. Lewicka-Szczebak
As you can see, both reviewers agree this work provides an important contribution to the field, and have provided a number of helpful comments to help improve the manuscript.
Thank you for your very constructive responses to their comments. Please implement these in a revised manuscript for final acceptance.
Regards
Perran Cook

Dear Dr. Lewicka-Szczebak
Thank you for implementing the changes.

In your response you sometimes make the comment this information will be added in the text. Please provide a copy of the modified text in your response.

I also undertook a final proof read and noticed there are also still numerous minor grammatical errors which make the manuscript hard to follow. I have pointed out a few below, please have a native or highly accomplished English speaker check for grammar.

Line 21 determination of the mixing
Line 23 applying an optimal calculation strategy, typically reaching an accuracy
Line 62 the first attempt
Line 63 the field
Line 68 the soil nitrogen budget
Line 71 allows us to
Line 84 dual isotope plots are often applied
Line 86 The Sp/N map was first
Line 87 relationship
Line 93 agreement between the
Line 113 Incubations as a reference
Line 121 low precision
Line 122 In estimating
Line 127 an identical
Line 133/134 validate the applicability
Line 134 to partition N2O producing pathways
Line 134 to develop the best
Line 295 drying at 110
296 Nitrate and ammonium concentrations were determined.
line 331 only showed pronounced differences for the f1
line 333 I can’t understand this sentence

Regards
Perran Cook