Dear Dr. Kaufman,
I have read the answers that you have provided to the comments of both reviewers. Based on that, I encourage you to submit a revised version of your work that takes into account the modifications mentioned in your answers.

Thank you for your efforts,

Kind regards,

Marilaure Grégoire

Dear Dr. Kaufman,
Two reviewers have reviewed the revised version of your manuscript, "Assimilating bio-optical glider data during a phytoplankton bloom in the southern Ross Sea", and your response to their comments. They both found that you adequately addressed their concerns and I agree with them. Based on that I suggest that your manuscript be accepted for publications in Biogeosciences provided that you address the minor comments here below.

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Biogeosciences.
With kind regards
Marilaure Grégoire
Comments:
Line 19: please correct the units and add a minus in front of the exponent “2”. It should be 104 g C m-2 y-1

Line 65; please mention after Phaeocystis Antarctica, “ (P.antarctica)”
Line 396: I would say “Phytoplankton growth and sinking rates” instead of “phytoplankton rates” because this does not concern all rates.
Line 399: ‘the initial hand-tuned simulation” You mean the “No Assimilation” experiment? “Optimal simulation” you mean “Full Assimilation” experiment ? Please clarify and uniformize throughout the manuscript in order to avoid confusion.
Line 410: growth rates are not in m/day but /day. Please correct.
Tables and Figures
Table 2, legend. Please clarify where the time is given. According to my understanding the first column refers to the type of experiments performed or simulation name as used in Table 3 and not to the Time as currently mentioned.
Table 3, legend: Please clarify the period over which the time averaging has been performed (length of simulation and then converted into annual mean values?). I do not understand why the footnote (“costs represent means +/- one std”) related to the cost is put for the first column. I would have put that in the legend for clarity. Finally, for helping the reader, I would briefly explain what are the “predictive costs” and “assimilative costs” (a few words are enough)
Figure 5: You mention “For reference, model results for the Full Assimilation case (orange lines), and glider data (black lines) with shading (gray) representing one standard deviation are included in each panel.” However, the orange curve in each graph is not always the full assimilation case but rather the central lat/lon band assimilation case. Besides, please clarify how the standard deviation is computed.

Dear Dr. Kaufman,
We thank you for having taken into account the last comments. I am pleased to accept your paper for publication in Biogeosciences.
Thank you for your work.

Kind regards,
Marilaure Grégoire