The discussion paper of Zhang et al. has been seen by three referees. All agree that it constitutes a well-done study based on high-quality data and which significantly contributes to our knowledge of diatom response to rapid environmental changes over long time scales.
The reviewers also provided very constructive suggestions on how this study can be further improved, particularly in terms of data interpretation. Moreover two referees suggested another round of evaluation (“major revision”) and kindly agreed to re-evaluate the revised paper.

In their revised version of the paper, the authors should focus on:
- a re-evaluation of their DC interpretations (secondary proxy?),
- a comparison with another geochemical proxies (e.g., TN and δ18O), and
- a more comprehensive discussion of anthropogenic impacts on diatom communities (possibly involving TN and/or δ15N proxies).

I also encourage the authors to compare the Co1262 diatom record with the records recently obtained from site DEEP and to link their study more closely to the ongoing pyroclastic work in Lake Ohrid (see, for example, the diatom response and geochemical studies in the current special issue).

Judging from the response of the authors, I feel that these questions can be adequately addressed. I therefore invite the authors to submit a revised version for re-consideration, which is based on their responses to the suggestions of the referees published during the interactive discussion.

Both referees agree that the revised manuscript has substantially improved and they feel satisfied with the author's response to their critical comments. There are only minor issues regarding style that were raised by referee #1 (e.g., the excessive use of the term correlation). I therefore ask the authors to make the respective technical changes before the ms can be published. Congratulation to this nice piece of work!