Dear Dr. Fröhlich-Nowoisky,

thank you very much for your revised version and rebuttal. You addressed the reviewer's concerns appropriately and given the overall high quality of the work, I would like to accept your manuscript.

However, there a few issues that remain to be solved, most of which are related to style:
- P1, L18/19. I think you don’t need to mention/define in the abstract that INA is related to particularities of the methodological setup
- P1, L23 “handful” is slang. Use “few” or something like this. In any case, this sentence needs referencing. But for an abstract that wouldn’t reed nicely. I’d rather make a statement saying that few reports on INA fungi exist and that your report is the first from the Mortierellomycotina clade
- P1, L25. Define what part of the fungus was found in air/rain (hyphae? spores?)
- P2 L5/6 and throughout the MS: Check that references are ordered chronologically, starting with the oldest
- P4 L14. erase "more"
Use more active voice: eg. P4L16. “it was originally intended..” I presume that YOU intended to grow isolates (and not some unknown third party)
- P4L31. use “real temperature” instead of “true”
- P5L1: change to “Once cooled to..”
- P5L5/6 This sentence reads oddly. Change to “Ice nucleation active Fusarium acuminatum cultures (provided courtesy of Linda Hanson, Michigan State University) were used as positive controls (≈ 109 IN g-1 mycelium). “
- P5L14 and throughout the manuscript: provide manufactures as “Manufacturer_Name, country.
- define all formulas in a new row with any definition of acronyms in the following rows
(eg. formula on P7, R9: only write the formual in Row 9, and subsequent text in R 10ff. Also define formula 2 of Agresti and Coull)
- all figures/tables: use same font type (and if possible, size)
- Table 4: use points as digital separators
- Fig. 2. The lines and points look very feeble, use thicker, non-dashed lines
- Fig. 3/4. see comment to Fig. 2
- perhaps a native speaker could give the MS a final fine-tuning