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!