The carbon cycle in the Southern African woodlands (SAW) is significantly influenced by climate change and fire disturbances. The lack of Eddy flux observations and spatial variation in ecosystem functional traits, such as lifespan and fire resilience, complicate regional carbon budget assessments. This study innovatively employs data assimilation to generate individual simulations for 1,506 pixels in SAW, addressing the spatial variability associated with using a single plant functional type (PFT) within land surface models (LSMs). It develops a comprehensive regional carbon budget and investigates the causal relationships between carbon flux, climate factors, and fire disturbances, highlighting the importance of spatial variation in ecosystem functional characteristics.

Overall, this manuscript is in good shape for publication, and the methodology is innovative with rich contents. However, several specific issues need to be addressed, including citation errors and disconnections between the research findings and the narrative, which may hinder clarity. Please find them below:

Please provide more details about the method and materials, such as an accessible code of the model and data. Also at Page 13, Lines 13-16: There are no materials to support these results.

Page 13, Lines 17-18: Figure S2 does not include Carbon Tracker Europe.

Page 15, Lines 15-17: I cannot calculate the three numbers (19%, 81%, and 59%) based on the text and Figure 3. Could you clarify the calculations?

Page15, Lines 19-20: T The numbers do not match those in Figure 3, which may cause confusion. For instance, the mean value of NEE calculated as Ra + Rh - GPP = 7.67 + 7.04 - 15.95 = -1.24 does not correspond with -1.04 in Figure 3. The authors should verify all results carefully. Additionally, the numerical representation in Figure 3 retains two decimal places, while other sections, like the abstract, use one decimal place. This inconsistency can be confusing; I recommend a unified format.

Page16. Lines 9-10: There appears to be a reference error; it may be Figure S4 instead of Figure 4. Additionally, how are the uncertainties measured from Figure S4? I cannot conclude that uncertainties on ΔC_DOM being four times higher than for ΔCveg.

Figure 4: Additional Y-axis titles in the second row need to be removed.

Page 20, Lines 5-6: The text states that T_wood,fire and T_wood,other are spatially variable, but there is no spatial pattern for T_wood,fire in Figure 8.

Page 20, Line 2: A right bracket is missing.

Page 20, Lines 6-8: Is this referring to Figure S7? However, Figure S7 appears to relate to C_foliage rather than C_wood.

Williams et al. describe how an established, intermediate-complexity biophysical model has been constrained using biomass and leaf area observations, along with a soil carbon product, to estimate a carbon (C) budget for the extensive southern African savanna. This parameterization was then employed to investigate potential spatial variations in ecosystem functional relationships and causal links between C stocks, fluxes, climate, and fire. The results were contrasted with the typical representation of the region in a suite of land surface models that use more prognostic approaches to simulating fire in the C cycle.

The study is ambitious in scope, and its results and discussion aim to address three key research questions. However, these findings should be contextualized by examining the effectiveness of the model-data fusion approach and the efficiency of the data-constrained outputs. Clearly linking the emergent spatial patterns of C stocks and fluxes to the underlying parameterizations poses challenges, particularly due to the brevity of the model description in Section 3.2.1 and the optimization processes in Section 3.2.2, and how the calibration and validation results are discussed in Section 4.1. These issues are especially pertinent to how fire is integrated into the model.

Fire is identified as a crucial control on ecosystem dynamics, and interpreting the overall results heavily depends on how fire's impact is represented. Given this importance, additional details are necessary to fully explain how fire and associated emissions are modeled within the CARDAMOM framework.

The description of fire emission calculations requires further elaboration and should clarify the following points without assuming in-depth familiarity with Exbrayat et al. (2018):

• How is "burnt area" used as a driver? Is there a specific step that converts burnt area into biomass or "vegetation pools in the burned area"?
• On Page 10, Line 7, it is stated that emissions are calculated by multiplying burnt area by a combustion fraction parameter from Exbrayat et al. (2018). How does this differ from the "specific combustion parameters" applied to each C pool?
• The same resilience factor is applied to all C pools (except SOM). How is this assumption justified?
• Without a diagram, it is difficult to understand the flow of C from pool to emission and between pools, as described on Page 10, Lines 9–12 (although Figure 3 in the results section is somewhat helpful).

Section 3.2.2 would benefit from an expanded explanation of how the fire and combustion parameters are constrained. Specific clarifications needed include:

• Is the only observational data available to constrain these parameters a rapid change in aboveground biomass/LAI, coinciding with a time step where significant burnt area is observed in the forcing?
• Within the EDC framework, is there a mechanism to explicitly link biomass changes to fire occurrence, thereby impacting fire and combustion parameters? Alternatively, does the optimization infer fire, disturbance, and turnover parameters solely from biomass changes?
• What happens if/when observations of rapid biomass changes and burnt area forcing do not align in space and time?
• The simulated change in aboveground biomass appears to depend on both combustion completeness for wood and biomass resilience. What are the implications for estimating these parameters, which exhibit significant equifinality when constrained only by biomass change observations? How does this affect the fire-related Mort_wood flux and the subsequent C_som dynamics, leading to the large E_som flux?

Section 4.1 provides limited information about how parameters, including fire and combustion parameters, are constrained or how model performance is validated. To address this, the following questions should be clarified:

• Why and how was the validation data in Figure S2 combined, and why is this not discussed in Section 3.2.3?
• On Page 13, Lines 20–21, it is stated that "fire emissions fell at the lower end of the range of fire emissions products," yet this appears to contradict the lower panel of Figure S2.
• Page 13, Lines 21–22, mentions that "uncertainties were much larger than the products' range." Why is this the case, and what are the implications for interpreting emergent functional and causal relationships?

Given the challenges in constraining fire and combustion parameters and the resulting large uncertainties in fire emissions, which hinder interpretation of ecosystem-level model outputs, it would be informative to compare CARDAMOM emissions with emissions from the prognostic fire models in the TRENDY LSM dataset. On Page 25, Line 30, it is suggested that "inconsistencies in C emissions from respiration and fire" account for mismatches in NBP, and this claim should be substantiated with more information on TRENDY model emissions in Section 4.5.