Dear RC1, 

Thank you very much for pointing out them which is really important. 

1. Line 85. The model also consider the GPP and respiration. In the paragraph I talked directly about net primary product, as the photosynthesis model following the concept of de Pury and Farquhar already includes the GPP and Respiration in the calculation. I will revise the more clear context for my sentences in Line 85 as follow: “The photosynthesis module includes the absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) in the leaf canopy following the concept of de Pury and Farquhar (1997). It considers the electron-transport limited rate of photosynthesis, Rubisco-limited photosynthesis, leaf respiration to estimate the net primary product (NPP) in the leaf-level”.
2. Line 285. I understand, I will put information in the paragraph body or Table 3.
3. Line 295. We compare the yield in the site-scale to confirm before running them in global which I put in line 300 (Supplementary Figure S2). In line 300, I didn’t talk about the comparison clearly as I don’t want to jump to yield evaluation from biomass partitioning description. So I will add this sentence to line 320: “We confirmed the yield in the site scale after removing the calibration data using this biomass partitioning has correlation about 68% and significancy (p value < 0.001). This agreement is also applied for the aboveground biomass weight, pod weight, and leaf area index (Supplementary Figure S2).

Please let me know if I misunderstood your comment.

Best wishes!

The reply is written in the attached pdf. Based on RC2 comment, we found overestimation cause due to different formulation. Hence, we hope to extend the deadline. Thank you very much