Dear Karina and co-authors,

I have now received 2 reports of the original reviewers and an e-mail notification of the third reviewer.
Given their feedback, I'm asking you to revise your manuscript one more to address their comments.
Referee #1 has 2 points that you should be able to directly and openly address as requested in that report.
Referee #2 has several points, most importantly on the framing of the study. Here I'm asking you to pay particular attention to the advise and to take all necessary efforts to address these.
Referee #3 did not submit an official report but only responded quickly via e-mail after I inquired about the state of the report. The main point of referee #3 was that the paper would contain unnecessary detail that could be easily found in the cited literature. One suggestion was to make section 2 more concise, e.g. by compiling a table with the parameters described in the text with a column for the original JULES parameter, one for the JULES-crop parameter (if that distinction is helpful), one for the parameter used in your study and one column with remarks and the relevant equation. Another point of referee #3 was that figures 3 and 4 are too busy. I would recommend to also indicate what site was modeled by the same colors as used for the observations in figure 4 and to use dashed lines for modeled values in both panels. The distinction between the Osborne parameterization and yours is already given by the two panels.

I am confident that you can address the remaining points adequately and look forward to receiving the revised version of your manuscript.

Cheers
Christoph

Thanks for addressing the reviewers' comments.
I'm happy to accept the paper, subject to a last technical correction, namely renaming the results section(s) from "Results" to "Results and Discussion" as the sections clearly contain the presentation of results as well as their interpretation.

I look forward to see the final paper in GMD.
Thanks for submitting to GMD!

Cheers
Christoph Müller