Thanks for submitting your work to Biogeosciences. This manuscript was read and commented on by two reviewers as well as a non-assigned reader; in general all provide thoughtful, interesting comments and useful suggestions. I have read and reviewed this feedback, the authors’ responses, and of course the manuscript itself.

In general I agree with the reviewers that this is fundamentally a strong, interesting manuscript, and your responses are thoughtful and adequate. I do also, however, share some of their concerns about the experiments treatments and how they’re described. In particular, R2’s concern about heat stress being confounded with drought should be carefully considered, and the potential problem (or not) of different light levels comprehensively discussed. The comments about notation and R package descriptions are well taken although optional from my point of view; the critical thing is that things are clearly documented. On that note, the availability of your data and analytical code needs to be clearly specified, ideally with a link to a permanent repository.

In summary, this is an interesting manuscript that needs moderate to major revisions before further consideration.

Thanks for your careful and comprehensive responses and revisions to the first-round reviews. Both reviewers have assessed the revised ms and find it much improved: clearer, strengthened in almost every respect, and stronger. Both now recommend acceptance, although R2 still has a number of minor technical suggestions and questions.

I have read the ms and agree with the reviewers. After addressing R2's remaining comments--which should not take much work--I think this will be fully acceptable for final publication in Biogeosciences. Congratulations on an interesting and well-done study.