Dear Authors,
I think the reviewers mostly agree that your work challenges the current manner an in which "PhytOC is used as a paleoenvironmental tool (proxy of plant C) and definitely demonstrates and that a part of PhytOC has a non-photosynthetic origin" (see comments reviewer 3). They generally like the approach and thoroughness of work. However, at least 2 of the reviewers feel that the clarity and thus impact of the manuscript is (somewhat) reduced by all data included. "I recommend the authors spend some time re-evaluating the structure of the manuscript – particularly the results - and considering carefully the degree to which the extra analyses
they performed actually contribute to the results and conclusions". Reviewer 3 also comments on this and provides other useful information to revise the manuscript. I would recommend to spend time to incorporate the suggestions made by reviewer 3 and 1 to make some changes to the structure and data, mostly in the result section to bring out the important key message of the paper even more. Maybe even more of the data presented needs to go to supplementary material but this will make that section more bulky.
This revision is somewhat between minor and medium revision, but if done properly the final version can be dealt with as an editorial review only.

The authors commented in depth to the reviewers comments and suggestions and not more can be expected at this stage. The published paper will I believe contribute to the on-going discussion in this research area and therefore valuable for the scientific community.