Thank you for your patience during a busy time of year editorially. We have received two constructive, thorough reviews of the manuscript and both agree that this work is publishable after consideration of the comments. I too have read the manuscript and agree with the assessments.

Both reviewers raised points about the goals of the study with the first reviewer requesting more discussion of how the study addresses the questions in the results and discussion. The second reviewer also requests that the goals are stated more clearly in the abstract.

Both reviewers also mentioned that the study should more carefully consider effects of snow cover.

Reviewer 1 makes several important points notably about addressing research questions throughout the manuscript. I also can appreciate the comment about discussing the model parameterizations that should lead to capturing the drought and drought legacy effects. I also agree that moving Table S1 to the main manuscript might be a good idea if feasible given how much it is mentioned.

Reviewer 2 additionally raises points about the quality of the GPP and respiration processing, and I agree that adding a statement about the uncertainties partitioning these fluxes from NEE is helpful.

Please revise considering these comments.

Andrew Feldman

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your patience. Both reviewers feel the revisions were thorough and we are now able to accept the manuscript for publication. Congratulations!

Andrew Feldman