Dear Authors,

Thank you for preparing a response to the reviewers' comments. Your responses seem satisfactory to me, however, I would like to ask the original reviewers opinion on the response and the revised manuscript. Therefore please go ahead and revise the manuscript and resubmit.

Thanks again,
Shrad

Dear Authors,

Thank you again for responding to the reviewers comments and revising the manuscript accordingly. I am pleased to accept the manuscript for publication after some minor corrections which I am listing below.

Regards,
Shrad

(1) In some of the figures it is hard to read the legends. I suggest you to please show the legends outside of the figure boundary and use larger fantasize for labels and larger size for the markers as well. This particularly implies for Fig 5.

(2) Also I noticed that in the figure labels you are referring to fluxnet observations for all variables (e.g. LE, H, G) as 'Fluxnet_MDS', 'Fluxnet_Corr' but in the text and also in Table 1 you are referring to them using the variable names (e.g. LE_CORR). This creates a bit of a confusion, as I was looking for those terms as labels in the figure.

(3) P11, L236: Please rephrase "its superior performance is curious." This seems odd for a research article, I know that later in the manuscript you have speculated on as to what may be causing it (e.g. a problematic with soil-column scheme at sub-grid scale), may be simply reiterate that here too?