The reviewers' comments appear to have been addressed in a satisfactory manner, however I would request that in the new section 2.4, the 'uncertainties' are defined in terms of what they represent. One would assume they are the 1 sigma standard errors, but this should be stated. It should also be stated whether they represent precision, accuracy or a combination of these.

Incidentally, when independent standard errors of 20% and 10% are combined, this results in a total error of 22% (i.e. sqrt(0.2^2 + 0.1^2) ) when normal error propagation rules are applied. However, if they authors have cause to be more conservative than this (e.g. if the sources of error cannot be assumed independent), then this is fine, because what they currently present (30%) would represent the most pessimistic case. However, I thought I should mention this in case this is not what the authors intended.

One of the revised sentences (line 453) is a little clumsy with too many commas and repeated words. Consider rephrasing to, "However, this could be due to features associated with the site of this study, such as the relatively open canopy caused by the proximity to a dirt road and perhaps a relatively low fraction of isoprene emitting species."