Dear Dr. Kirwan:

Thank you for submitting this nice paper to Biogeosciences. I have read your revision and rebuttal and I am happy to inform you that your paper is now accepted for publication.

While reading, I identified a few minor, technical correction:
- p. 4, l. 10: use mu rather than u (5 micrometer).
- p. 5, l. 27: should this be Figure 2b?
- the reference list is incomplete: e.g. Duarte et al. (p.1 ,line 27) is cited, but not in the list. Please check all through.

(A few critical remarks, which you do not have to consider).
The argument for oxygen is not very strong: most physical-chemical processes, including diffusion, have a Q10 of 1.2-1.8. It is based on the implicit assumption that OM degradation depends on oxygen. Q10 values often scale with quality of organic matter and this limits the environmental relevance of your results.

With best regards,

Jack Middelburg, Editor of Biogeosciences