I appreciate the efforts by the authors to address the comments from all reviewers. The writing, particularly the introduction part, has been largely improved. I now have a good appreciation of what's potentially novel in this study. The analysis, however, still does seem very clear to me, for example, overall I don't feel the current map presentation is straightforward to demonstrate the flux matching criteria hence the effectiveness of MPR in land surface modeling. I therefore strongly encourage the authors to further improve the presentation quality (now in the result section). I have some specific comments as below.
1. Page 13, L18, implement --> implementing
2. Page 22, L20, 22, Figure 9 is mentioned but I could not find Figure 9 from the previous and current version.
3. Figure 7 & 8, it’d be easier for readers to see the “seamless” effects by MPR if the authors could show the difference between ET simulations at different spatial resolutions. For example, perhaps the authors can simply aggregate the ET fluxes from Fig. 7a, c, e from 5 arcmin to 30 arcmin, then subtracted by the values in Fig. 7b, d, f. |