Two expert reviewers support the publication of this paper in BG as a useful addition to the expanding use of UAV to measure ecosystem activities in general, and in this case energy budget and ET. However, the Reviewer provide a range of comments that need to be addressed before acceptance. The author in their response generally accept these comments and indicate ways to incorporate the relevant changes to the paper, and I therefore recommend to invite them to submit a revised version.

I suggest 'major revisions' so the revised paper can be checked again. This is because I find the Reviews as a mix of minor corrections with several more substantive ones that will need more attention. It is also important that these main issues are addressed in the revised manuscript and not only in the Repose to comment.

This paper report in the application of thermal radiation drone measurements to estimate evapotranspiration from the canopy of oil-palm plantation. It received supporting reviews from two expert Reviewers but with an extensive list of comments, which required revisions. The authors have now responded in detail to all the comments and revised the paper accordingly. Carefully checking the paper and Reviewers comments I find that all comments were related to clarifications, additional detail, and in-text corrections, and therefore consider it as minor revisions that do not require additional time investment of the reviewers. I therefore recommend publication in the parent form.

I indicated the need for technical corrections that do not need reviewing, as I would ask the authors to consider indicating around eq. 2 that the outgoing radiation is subtracted, and consider the inclusion of comments on potential limitations, such as due to significant effects of clouds on atmospheric emissivity, or of wind and turbulence cooling competing with evaporative cooling, when introducing a method for general use.