Thank you to authors for addressing the most essential elements of the reviewer suggestions. The paper now does a much better job of communicating where it and lumpR are placed relative to other literature and methods. Thanks also to all three reviewers for their constructive reviews.

I have significant sympathy with the comments of Referee 2 on this revised version of your manuscript. This referee notes the paper would be a more important contribution if it had followed some of the more substantive changes suggested in the earlier reviews, including additional sensitivity analysis and a more critical and insightful discussion of where this approach versus others, might be appropriate, and where further advances might be required. Referee 2 provided a particularly thorough and constructive review of the earlier version of this paper. This has significantly improved the manuscript and had the potential to improve it further.

I hope the authors consider following this guidance further in future work, referring to more detail in the previous review comments. I am however satisfied that this paper in its current form represents an incremental but still valuable contribution to the problem of landscape discretisation, most importantly in providing a well-described and reasonably state of the art open source and open access package. This transparency will allow the broader scientific community as well as the authors to explore further in what situations this and similar discretisation approaches are appropriate, and what further developments may be needed.

Neither I or the reviewers have identified any significant technical corrections required to the manuscript in its current form, however the paper needs careful copyediting before going to press, as there are many minor grammatical issues with the manuscript (5 in the first six lines of the abstract for example).