The manuscript titled 'Field-deployable branch enclosure system for biogenic volatile organic compounds emitted from conifers' by Ota et al. describe in detail their portable dynamic branch enclosure system design for the collection of emissions from conifers. The system is well designed and described so that others will be able to make similar systems for their own research, benefiting the community. The validation of the method is well documented and its use on the field demonstrated, yielding a valuable dataset of the emissions of Japanese cedar trees. The manuscript itself is well-written, well-structured, and easy to follow. In addition, the underlying data has been published in open access.

As the manuscript is of good quality, I recommend its publication in Atmospheric Measurement Techniques with only small technical corrections.

- lines 211-212: 'After trimming its base, we cut the branch under water to maintain it vascular integrity.' Could the author explain a little bit more how the branch was cut under water and possibly provide a reference demonstrating how vascular integrity is maintained by doing so?

- lines 226-227: 'at least one terpene was detected in each category'. Why did the author decided not to included all the detected terpenes (one in each category) in Fig. 2? There seems to be only MTs and one DT.

- FIgure 4: I am not sure to understand the boxplot (panel (a)) as there are datapoints scattered horizontally (why?) and some blue dots are  on the same levels as gray crosses. It is not clear from the caption if the crosses are outliers, but if they are, why are there blue dots (not outliers?) at the same height? In panel (b), the three colors used for MTs are very similar and make it difficult to see what compounds are present in the emissions from the figure.

- lines 296-303: The authors mention the possible effect of stress, but state that it is not the objective of their study to look closer at the factors determining BVOCs emissions. The sample size, they argue, is 'not large enough', but I believe that it is still a decent enough sample size as they have shown using various statistical tools. As a suggestion (more than a request for revision), I think that it would be nice to include something about the environmental conditions (e.g. temperature and its effect on the emission rates) as the sensors (for temperature, radiation, etc.) are part of the dynamic branch enclosure system and it would be good to demonstrate what conclusions could be made with the acquired dataset. I understand, however, if the authors have planned to demonstrate this in a subsequent manuscript with a larger dataset and more solid conclusions.