Based on my reading of the revised manuscript, combined with your responses to the reviewers comments, I find the paper suitable for publication. However, reading through your responses, I noticed that you, most likely accidentally, didn't provide an adequate response to the following reviewer comment. Please elaborate and provide updated manuscript if additional explanatory text is required.

Reviewer comment:
Section 3.4 (page 9):
This section is underdeveloped. While the authors do make it clear that the simulations are mainly proof of principle they will be of considerable interest to many readers as they demonstrate the culmination of the model changes presented. In particular, the residue forestry panels in figure 9 are not even mentioned. These results suggest that litter harvest can provide roughly the same biomass yield as coppice while having very little impact on forest growth (comparing to the first 40 years of the rotation panels). This is a very provocative initial result and should be contextualized in the text as is done for the coppice and rotation simulations. We will find an appropriate case in the literature to inform a new simulation of residue forestry to strengthen this proof of principle."

Author response: We will find an appropriate case in the literature to inform a new simulation of residue forestry to strengthen this proof of principle.