Please submit a revised version of your manuscript that responds to the second round of comments from referees 1 and 2, including a separate document pointing to your specific revisions to address the referee comments. A summary of referee comments to be addressed in this revised manuscript is included below:

Two comments from Referee 1:
1. Figure 3 would benefit, if available, of data with ozone fumigation under dark condition in order to appreciate total ozone flux variation in the transition from light to dark conditions.
2. Statistics are needed in figure 4 in order to establish if differences between tobacco varieties are statistically significant.

Five comments from Referee 2:
1. Since the authors acknowledged that the ozone surface reactions cannot be a defense mechanism, but instead is an "opportunistic ... side effect", the paper's title needs to be changed accordingly.

2. Much of the shown plant responses in terms of deposition of ozone and emissions of volatiles is qualitative. A calculation should be shown demonstrating the quantitative relationship between ozone loss and volatiles production, which, in turn, should allow statements about stomatal ozone losses beyond the qualitative ones made. If this calculation does significantly differ from what is shown in Figure 4, that needs to be explained.

3. Alongside such a calculation, another sample calculation should be presented comparing the "new" surface loss concept to the "old" one, thus demonstrating quantitatively the changes to stomatal ozone flux to be expected for plant species exhibiting an effective surface loss reaction.

4. In comparing Figures 3 and 4, it appears that virtually no effect was observed during the dark to light transition shown in Fig. 3, but displayed in Fig. 4. Explain.

5. I am having reservations with respect to the extrapolation arguments and speculation made in section 3.7; it appears somewhat selective in the sense of trying to find results supportive of the argument. For instance, the knowledge that pine needles contain high amounts of terpenes is not the same as those terpenes being secreted onto the surfaces of the needles (they are not). A main finding of the work is that ozone is only effectively deposited to a reactive surface that shows an obvious exposure to the atmosphere, and that condition is less widely found than the authors' new text suggests.
I suggest therefore to consider a few more works, including e.g. the Wolfe et al. CAFE papers and other papers that cite Holzinger et al., 2005.