There were some problems with the results for the applied two-source energy balance models TSEB-PT 
and DTD. I attached the proofreading version of the manuscript with the changes, 
a second .pdf file with the revised figures. 

The only (but major) change I made, was cutting the TSEB-PT and DTD models completely from the manuscript, 
since they were not fully calibrated to the oil palm, and hence, a fair model comparison would not take place. 
Since all the DATTUTDUT model parts are correct, they completely remained in the manuscript. 
I think the manuscript might be reduced by two to three pages now, but the 'message' remains and is possibly 
even clearer. 

I was very careful, to only cut parts from the manuscript, without adding new passages, so that the entire 
manuscript was still subject to the previous review process.


The details of the problem are: 
I noticed that for two of the applied energy-balance models (TSEB-PT and DTD), while the latent-heat fluxes 
seem to be in order, there appear to be issues with the values of sensible heat and ground heat fluxes; 
in contrast, everything appears to be in order with all fluxes reported for the DATTUTDUT model. 
During the revisions, I had focused mostly on revising the latent-heat fluxes of the TSEB-PT and 
DTD models as requested by the reviewers, and I had unfortunately overlooked the mentioned inconsistencies 
in sensible heat and ground heat fluxes. These errors are likely the result of the arrangements of the 
vegetation parameters for oil palm, of which I didn't find any example parameters in other publications yet. 
This issue is even shortly discussed in the manuscript; however, these errors now appear to be larger than we 
had thought. 
