Dear Dr. Woulds,
many thanks for your response. Both, the more critical reviewer 1 and the reviewer 2, are positively inclined towards the manuscript (1. ...experimental results are clear and meaningful..., 2. ... a major strength of this manuscript is the comparison made between the sites investigated in this study and previous studies...), though the paper needs substantial revision in order to especially address the 3 main points of reviewer 1 and to make the paper more focused in the discussion as asked by reviewer 2.
I would look forward to a revised version of your manuscript after you have taken all points as raised in the online-discussion thoroughly into account for this new version.
Best regards, Christoph Heinze

Dear Dr. Woulds,
many thanks for your revised manuscript and for addressing the issues of the reviewers. There is one tiny technical correction necessary: Author names in the references shall follow the format as given in the author instructions (do not use capital letters throughout, but only for the first letter of a name), see:
http://www.biogeosciences.net/for_authors/manuscript_preparation.html
Under the condition that this is corrected, I accept your manuscript for publication in Biogeosciences. Thank you for using this open access journal for publishing your results.
Best regards, Christoph Heinze