Dear Sam, dear co-authors,

I would be very happy to read your new version. Based on your suggested improvements I think that the way how have addressed the major concerns from the reviewers is very clear and hope that the readability is improved. I hope that the flow chart will help in understanding the coupling, and that the papers is now focusing more on the scenarios and less on the technical coupling of the models.

Dear authors
I hope you are all doing well. Thank you for your revisions and I'm happy that it can be accepted with some small corrections:
1) abstract: the sentence while indicators of some ecosystem services show trends .. and others not: This is very general. Can you be more precise?
2) you use many times indicators see. Or scenarsios saw etc. Scenarios can not see, it is that the scenario simutations show. I would prefer to change this (eg.L7, L380,L381, L399,L488)
3)Legend Figure 2: change 2001-2010 mean to the average over 2001-2010
4) Legend Figure 2 and Figure 4: high interannual variability. I would say high intra- and interannual variability.
5) Line 273: that region net loses large (dont understand the sentence)
6) Figure 5: I wouldnt add for every SSP the value at 2000 as those are equal. I like the way how you have done this for figure 7 in which you show how much it has changed compared to 2000. So for SSP1-45 (+43 PgC +/- 2, 11.7%), for SSP3-60 (+22 PgC , 5.8%) etc.

Once more thank you for your contribution. All the best Stefan Dekker