The editor finds that the authors responded more or less to all the comments/suggestions made by the two referees, albeit not so extensively in some cases.

Furthermore, when the editor reviewed the reviewer’s comments, author’s responses and the last submitted version of the manuscript (bg-2014-132-manuscript-version4.pdf) he still found a number of (minor and some larger) issues that the authors need to address better before the manuscript can be accepted for a final publication in and international journal as Biogeosciences.

General comment 1. The Abstract does not meet the standards for such journal (see specific comments). According to the journal’s Manuscript Preparation instructions it should contain. “After a brief introduction of the topic, the summary recapitulates the key points of the article and mentions possible directions for prospective research.”

General comment 2. The Introduction fails to adequately give “state of the art” of related research, to explain what is really the novelty of this study and also to better explain the scientific aims of the study and why they matter.

General comment 3. The discussion fails to give clear answers to the aims of the study (which were missing from the start) and what are the implications of its findings in a larger context or for future research.

General comment 4. The Conclusions need to be rewritten after clarifying the aims of the study and should highlight its importance in a larger context and/or how such research should continue.

What the four above General comments come down to is that without such general improvements in the structure of the paper, it simply reports a more-or-less an isolated case-study for a specific site, without good connection to a a broader theory or “a problem”. That is not enough substance to appear in an international journal of a relatively high IF like Biogeosciences. The editor therefore urges the authors to make further improvements on the paper before he will consider accepting it to Biogeosciences.

General comment 5. Use PAST TENSE when you discuss your own results (the editor believes he already gave this very basic format instruction during the initial submission). The authors fail repeatedly to do this, e.g. in the Abstract.

General comment 6. Units with denominator should be formatted with negative exponents. The authors clearly have not studied the journal format instructions (see the journal homepage), since way too many such errors still occur in their „final“ manuscript.

General comment 7. Your reference list does not adequately follow the format instructions given by the journal. You are e.g. missing almost all the doi-numbers which are required to be included in the reference list, wherever they exist.

MORE SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
Page 1 – lines 12-21. Abstract: Start the abstract by giving some “state of the art” of related research and what was your aim with this study. Then you can tell where you choose to conduct your study and what were your key findings (this is how you start the Abstract now). Then you should give what are the main suggested reasons for your findings. BUT, you CAN NOT say in the Abstract that “modelling INDICATES that…”, since you did actually NOT DO ANY SUCH MODELING YOURSELF in the study!! You should not either make a statement in the Abstract that requires a reference support, like using this specific modelling study as your main conclusion would do. Instead the Abstract should end by stating something about the novelty of the study and which implications your results have in the larger context.

Then to show the authors various detail errors in just the first few lines of the abstract, they are asked to consider the following:
Page 1 – line 13. “on the Juan Fernández Ridge (JFR)” => No need to repeat this from the title – or to give (JFR), which you don’t use elsewhere in the abstract.
Page 1 – line 13. “indicates that…” => “indicated that…” (use past tense when you discuss your own results).
Page 1 – line 14. “8,000 BP” => 8,000 years BP
Page 1 – line 14. “ 8.5 mm/yr.” => 8.5 mm year-1.
You should not use “/” in units according to the journal format instructions. Correct in Abstract and elsewhere in the manuscript.
Page 1 – line 16-17. “occurred at ca. 0.8 Ma (…” => occurred ca. 800,000 years BP (…
Here the authors suddenly change the time format used earlier (x years BP) to 0.8 Ma => this only causes confusion.
You should NOT italicize ca., et al., e.g. or other Non-English phrases/words (except e.g. Latin species names) according to the format instructions the journal gives.
Page 1 – line 17: “ and there is no sign” => “ and there was no sign” (use past tense when you discuss you own findings).

The authors are kindly requested to rewrite the whole Abstract following the above general instructions.

INTRODUCTION

Page 1 – line 24 to Page 2 – line 48. Introduction.
In this part the authors should give enough background and state-of-the-art so their study can be understood in a wider scientific context. This is too limited now and should be expanded, as was actually requested by the reviewers. The authors should then also in this sub-chapter make clear what is the novelty of this study and also to better explain the scientific aims of the study and why they matter.

Page 1 – line 24 – Page 2 – line 28. => This first half of the first paragraph (and reference to Fig. 1) should be moved down to the next subchapter (site description). Giving the more specific site information is not the correct way to start an Introduction chapter. => you could later in the Introd. mention where the study was taking place etc. when it comes to say what were the aims of the study…

Page 2 – line 28. According to the plume hypothesis,... => According to the plume hypothesis (cf. REF),... => You could start your Introduction chapter from this sentence... But you should give a reference here... E.g. Smith & Lewis (1999) in Earth-Science Reviews. The „Plume hypothesis“ is also a term used atmospheric science and then means something compleatly different ;o)

Page 2 – line 45-46. “Although most of the active oceanic islands are subsiding (such as the Surtsey island in the 45 last decades; e.g., Moore et al., 1992),” => Move this subsentence to the beginning of the paragraph that now starts in line 36. + e.g. should not be italicized.

Page 2 – line 36-44. => Rewrite and extend this paragraph and explain in a little bit more detail the different processes at work in vertical displacement of volcanic islands – and give references.

Page 2 – line 44-45. =>Add a new paragraph where you could explain how biostratigraphy and sedimentology has previously been used in studies on vertical displacement of volcanic zones/islands. This is important because as of now the Introduction/Abstract are too “purely geological” for the “bio-geo” scope of the journal.

Page 2 – line 46-48. “, here we present evidence for a…” => Modify and extend this paragraph so it also highlights what is the novelty of this study and also its scientific aim(s).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Page 2 – line 49. => Move this subchapter under 3. Material and Methods => M&M then becomes 2. And this subchapter (which essentially is “site description”) becomes 2.1.
The subchapter should start with the first half of the paragraph that is now in the beginning of the Introduction chapter – and here the reference to Fig. 1 should appear.

Page 2 – line 50 “(ca. 9 Ma)” => standardize your time format. Either use “years BP” or “Ma PB” – but then you should give a description of what Ma stands for the first time you use it for the more biological or soil oriented readers of Biogeosciences.

Page 2 - lines 50… => There is no mention of the most recent eruption on RCI (800,000 years BP) in this subchapter, which is however mentioned in the Abstract!? Add this info and relevant references.

Page 3 – line 58-59. “…Tierra Blanca Bay. The latter name is applied (in Spanish)” to a succession described by Morales (1987) => What are the authors trying to explain here? Latter to what name is the Tierra Blanca Bay? What is in Spanish? – yes of course “tierra blanca”; but what is the significance here? Please improve what you are trying to get across here.

Page 3 – line 80. (http://radiocarbon.pa.qub.ac.uk/marine/) => Please don’t give an http address as a citation in the text => Use the database name and year created/visited instead (Xxxxx, 2013); Then give the information, including the web address in the Reference list. According to the journal format instructions this should be set up in the Reference list as:
Webpages: Title: URL, Access date, Year (if not analog with access date)
Example: Copernicus Publications: http://publications.copernicus.org/, last access: 2 July 2007.
If an article is available via the internet, an URL address can be inserted before the year, e.g. “available at: http://www.copernicus.org/, 2007.”

Page 3 – line 83. (http://www.shoa.cl/mareas/tablademarea.html) => Same comment as last.

RESULTS

Page 3 – line 84. Depositional environments => This should be changed to “3. Results”. The “Depositional environments” and “Radiocarbon dating” can then become subchapters 3.1 and 3.2

Page 4 – line 99-100. “These, as well as the occurrence of pellets, are typical of supratidal flats (e.g., Assereto and Kendall, 1977), => This is on the borderline to Discussion => if possible it could be moved there?

Page 4 – line 90-91. “Their composition is made up of… => Their composition was made up of…
Even if the authors have changed must of their Result chapter to past tense, there are number of sentences still found where they present their findings in present tense. Please correct everywhere in the chapter and always when you discuss your own findings.

Page 5 – line 130. “dikaka dunes” => This term warrants a further explanation to the general reader to become understandable. The Arabic word dikaka should not be italicized according to the journal format instructions.

Page 6 – line 153-154. “ On the other hand, land-dwelling species as Succinea and Fernandezia (e.g., Odhner, 1922) from units 3 and 4 gave…” => On the other hand, land-dwelling species such as Succinea and Fernandezia (e.g. Odhner, 1922), from units 3 and 4 gave…

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS

Page 6 – line 158. “6 Discussion” => 4. Discussion

The discussion as it is now focuses only on the vertical displacement processes and is fine (make it a subchapter (4.2? vertical displacement processes?), but there are still some loose threads left from the Introduction:
=> what was the connection of the present study to the “plume hypothesis” which was highlighted so much in the beginning of the Introduction? Did your findings support it or contradict it?
=> The discussion fails to give clear answers to the aims of the study (which were missing from the start) and what are the implications of its findings in a larger context or for future research. Please revise the Discussion after you have changed the Introduction in this respect.

Page 6 – line 159?. Add a new (short) paragraph (subchapter 4.1?) where you (maybe) summarize and discuss briefly how biostratigraphy and sedimentology together made it possible to derive vertical in the sea-land boundary at much higher temporal scale than otherwise possible? And where you link to other similar research.
There is still a need to add some kind of “biogeo” discussion to this article to better justify that it fits the scope of the journal (the handling editor will have to justify that to the Journal’s chief editors before the article will appear in its final form in BG).

Page 9 – line 238-248. 7. Conclusions => 5. Conclusions
The largest part (all except the last sentence) of the present Conclusions are not really “conclusions”; but rather a natural end of vertical displacement discussion (the 4.2. discussion subchapter). Please move to there and rewrite the Conclusions…

Page 9 – line 246. “Apparent tilting of the Pliocene volcanic pile could be another expression of this process.” => This warrants a further discussion and only taking this up in the Conclusions, and not mentioning it at all in the Discussion part is strange. Missing as a potential explaining process in both Introduction and Discussion chapters.


Page 9 – 241-242. At RCI there has been no major surface volcanic activity since about 3 Ma, with only minor post-shield activity at 0.8 Ma (Lara et al., 2013)” => This information did NOT appear in the “site description” part of the article!

Page 9 – 249-205. “These findings highlight the importance of biological markers in order to better understand the complex evolution of ocean islands.” => “These findings highlight the importance of biological markers (as tools?) to better understand the complex geological evolution of ocean islands.”
This sentence is well placed in the Conclusions, but it is this that the editor asks the authors to actually discuss in 4.1 (so this claim can be better supported).

Please rewrite the Conclusions after you have made the other suggested changes to Introduction and Discussion. Did you reach your aims? What was the most interesting finding(s)? What is the effect of your findings in an larger context? Etc.

APPENDIX
Page 9 – line 252. Appendix A: Calculation of required wind speed) => Remove “)” and place a citation to this appendix (Appendix A) at the appropriate place in the M&M. Now this Appendix appears without any clear connection with the M&M.

REFERENCE LIST:
See reference format instructions: http://www.biogeosciences.net/Copernicus_Publications_Reference_Types.pdf

Please use correct journal abbreviations; e.g. sci. = science (error in e.g. Fleming et al.)
Please abbreviate all journal names that can be abbreviated; e.g. Klügel et al.
Add doi numbers where available but still missing
Etc.