Dear authors,
based on the referee comments, you have significantly improved the manuscript. However, some referee comments were not addressed satisfactorily, and I have also identified some additional (minor) issues in the revised manuscript. My comments are listed in the attached pdf-document. The issues need to be improved before the manuscript can be accepted for final publication.

Best regards
Christof Ammann
AMT Associate Editor

In the second revised version, the authors have addressed all editor comments. However the checking of the corrections was very cumbersome due to the lack of a manuscript version with track changes.
The manuscript is now ready for publication subject to the following (technical) corrections:

1) Page 8, line 7: old units uL/L still need to be changed.

2) Page 9, line 10: This newly introduced sentence is very similar to the one two lines below (line 12/13) and thus can be omitted.

3) Page 10, line 16: Correct to "of both N2O and ..."; Correct to "... boundary layer in 22% and ..."

4) Page 10, line 17-20: In this revised statement it should be clearly specified, whether the four listed effects lead to physically high diffusive fluxes or erroneously overestimated diffusive fluxes.

5) Page 10, line 23: Correct to "(Figs. 7, 8)"

6) Page 10, line 31: Was the indicated average calculated over all chamber fluxes (for the differently fertilised fields) including 'no N' fluxes? Please specify.

7) Table 5: Do the average chamber fluxes presented in Table 5 include all chamber measurements including the measurements on the non-fertilised ("no N") fields? Please specify in the Table caption.

8) Fig.1: some of the labels in panel (b) are two small (e.g. "Met station" etc.) and need to be enlarged.

9) Fig.7&8: The legend labels "North fld", "South fld" for the chamber measurements are not informative. It would be more relevant to relate the chamber flux data to the field labels (fertiliser regimes) displayed in Fig. 1.

Best regards
Christof Ammann
AMT Associate Editor