Dear Mei Bai and co-authors,

Thank you for providing a revised version of your work. The manuscript has considerably improved and the comments raised by the reviewers have been thoroughly taken into account. It'll be a valuable contribution for the soil flux community regarding the issue of different footprints and temporal scales.

However, there is one last point I'm not convinced of, which has also been raised by Reviewer #1 (C. Flechard). P8L199-P9L204 (in the revised version): A background flux of 0.6 mg N2O-N is huge. With a fertilization rate of ca. 400 kg N ha-1 (~350 kg N ha-1 through chicken manure and ~50 kg N a-1 through Cal-Gran) and for example an average post-fertilization emission rate of ~3 mg N2O-N m-2 hr-1 (corresponding to 263 kg N ha-1), the emission factor would already be something like ~65%, and that doesn't even include the emission peak itself. Accounting additionally for the emission peak (which is usually done), the emission factor would probably exceed 100%. How can more N (in the form of N2O!) leave the system than the amount of N that is being added via fertilizer?

I suspect an issue regarding units or unit conversion (although fluxes agree fairly well based on the two different analytical devices, which is good to see).

Can the authors provide time series of measured concentrations or concentration differences (delta_CL) between the two vertically offset slant paths? This is to ensure higher transparency in the flux calculation procedure.

Please comment on the above-mentioned issue and double-check the individual flux calculations.

Kind regards,
Christian Brümmer

Dear Mei Bai and co-authors,

Thank you for commenting on this important point. I think it is crucial to inform the reader about the cumulative N loss during the 41-day campaign. It will demonstrate that the methods shown produce reasonable numbers for quantifying N losses. Please add the information - most suitably at the end of Section 3.2 - that 14.6 kg N ha-1 are emitted during the observation period and that this number corresponds to 3.7% of applied N. The manuscript can then be published.

Thank you for submitting your work to AMT.

Best regards,
Christian Brümmer