Dear authors,
please revise your manuscript according to the reviewer comments and your responses. Please give particular attention to improving the presentation quality of the manuscript.
Best wishes,
Sönke

The authors' response contains two different revised versions of the manuscript, with no explanations as to how these two documents relate. I also note that the second document contains extensive changes by a non-author, which remain unexplained. The response letter seems to be a blunt copy paste from the public response. While that is in principle possible to take large amounts of that text and argumentation, it is unclear to me why a response letter would start with ("we don't attach a revised manuscript"), when indeed there are two different revised manuscripts included. I further miss an explanation of how your responses are reflected in changes in the manuscript. Please clarify these issues before I will consider this revision further.

Dear authors,

the revised manuscript has now been seen by two reviewers, who both acknowledge some improvement of the manuscript compared to the previous version, but also point out a number of important caveats that would need to be addressed before this manuscript may become acceptable for Biogeosciences. In particular, both reviewers highlight an insufficient discussion section as well as problems with language use and precision of language as outstanding issues. Both reviewers give directions how to improve the manuscript. Should you decide to submit a revised version, please provide a point-by-point explanation of how you have dealt with these comments in the revised version of the manuscript.

Best wishes,
Sönke

Dear authors,

first of all apologies for the delay in deciding about this manuscript. I've been travelling with limited email access, and only managed to access the reviews now. Both reviewers are generally pleased with your revisions. However, reviewer #1 has provided a detailed review on mostly editorial changes in the manuscript that I urge you to follow in order to make this manuscript acceptable for Biogeosciences. When submitting a revised version of the manuscript, please provide a point-by-point response to how you have addressed the comment and changed the manuscript.

Best wishes,
Sönke