I would like to express gratitude to all the co-authors on the major efforts they have made to respond to the reviews, including adding method details, data from the smaller (120um) net hauls, statistical analysis of the spatial-temporal variations, and careful comparisons with other works especially for the stable isotope variations and the seasonal trophic changes.
The paper is very much improved and now provides a clear, useful, and deeply insightful assessment of zooplankton population variations in the region and over the season. Importantly, it represents the main effort to extend the scope of the overall KEOPS2 study above that of biogeochemistry into ecological trophodynamics.
For all these reasons, the paper is now acceptable for publication in Biogeosciences, as soon as the list of technical corrections below is addressed:

Throughout paper (including figure captions):
1. capitalize Polar Front at all instances
2. use F-L as the name of this station (not F as used in Figures 4, 5 and in some places in text)
3. refer to the net operations as net hauls (not net tows), since the nets were moved vertically upward while the ship was on station.
Line number change to text
PAGE 3
5 The aim of this study was
13 responded to the spring bloom
14 Taxonomic compositions
17 in the mixed layer.
27 during a Lagrangian time series survey
28-29 , but growth was still (remove individual)
29 In contrast,
31 due to growth under (remove individual)
32 January-February 2005
PAGE 4
14 sediments in the oceanic upper layer in the area east of Kerguelen
19 productivity in this eastern area fuels
PAGE 5
12-13 Remove “Despite....”, and simply write : It is also worth noting....
PAGE 6
13 winter (not pre-winter)
14 northeastern (not Northeastern)
29 replace long-term by intensive to accord with line 9 station description above
31 night (stations
32 hauls (not tows)
PAGE 7
6 However we used the 120 um net samples for the isotope analysis (as described in the following paragraph)
7-16 This new paragraph on the sample preparations for the isotope analyses is not clear. It needs to be rewritten. Here is an attemp:
To prepare samples for isotope analysis, size fractions were obtained as follows. Samples from the second 330um net haul at each station were passed sequentially through five sieves arranged in a column (2000, 1000, 500, 200, and 80 um meshes). The three largest sizes were then collected, and for the largest size (2000 um) large organisms such as salps and euphausiids were separated into additional containers. To provide more material for the two smallest sizes(200, 80 um), these materials were retained on the sieves and the contents of the 120um net haul were passed through the entire set of 5 sieves (with the overlying 2000, 1000, and 500 um sieves serving to block larger organisms and aggregates, but without those materials being collected. ). All samples were placed in small containers and immediately deep-frozen (-80 C).
PAGE 8
6-7 biomass (W, in units of mg dry weight, DW)
14 net haul
22 meaning of 1 to 10/1000 diluted is not clear – rewrite
33 changes almost corresponds to approximately corresponds
35 classified into small
PAGE 9
6 pre-weighed
PAGE 10
1 and 6 change MHV data not shown to data not shown, since MHV is a co-author
14 T-Group 1
PAGE 11
5 circulation pattern
9 recirculation system
13 and those stations close to the coast
15 change non-significant chlorophyll to slight chlorophyll (or something else, since non-significant is unclear)
19-20 The bloom started in earnest in early November
23 downstream in the Polar Front boom
27 Trull et al. (not Trulls)
34-35 change allowing chlorophyll to with accompanying chlorophyll
PAGE 12
2 from 100 to 50 m
6, 11, 13 make sure m-3 is a superscript
7 TEW 3
26 R2 should be a superscript
PAGE 13
6 However, these temporal changes were not significant
30 shallow (not narrow)
34 remove from net tows
PAGE 18
19 early spring bloom and (not early spring bloom in and)
PAGE 19
2 up to the time of E3 ....and then slightly increased at E4
PAGE 20
12 and A3-2
PAGE 21
3 replace “might be questionable” by ” must be considered”
PAGE 23
19 Insert a paragraph break before “The mean increase..” (or elsewhere in this very long paragraph).
Table 4.
The dates in the top line should be expressed in a standard notation such as dd/mm, not in Roman numerals!
Figure 2. caption states it is biomass, but figure appears to be abundance
Figure 3. caption states it is abundance but it appears to be biomass
Figure 2. The should be expressed in a standard notation such as dd/mm.
Figures 4 and 5. The station name in the legend should be F-L, not F
Figure 4 panel c title should be Biomass not Biomasse
Figure 7B, 2D-stress should be 0.12 not 0,12