Interactive comment on “The carbon cycle in Mexico: past, present and future of C stocks and fluxes” by G. Murray-Tortarolo et al

Although we agree that a finer resolution analysis could improve our understanding of the C balance in Mexico, most current models and the driving data needed to force them are on either a 0.5x0.5 or 1x1 resolution or higher. In addition, increasing the spatial resolution may not necessarily yield better results, as finer-scale processes may or may not affect larger scale processes (e.g. landslides usually have local scale effects). However, DGVMs are moving in this direction, i.e. application at finer spatial scales and working towards accounting for disturbances at the landscape scale. Nonetheless, we feel there is an error in the interpretation of our use of the word “comprehensive”. What we meant by “comprehensive” was the need for an analysis that includes multiple independent sources of evidence and takes into account multiple processes, e.g. the C stocks and C fluxes, plus interpretations in terms of the driving mechanisms behind them, which we feel we achieved. Very few studies in Mexico, and only very recently, have started to measure larger scale C fluxes and certainly not at the country scale. We will clarify this on the text and remove the term “comprehensive”.