Dear authors:
I have now received three reviewers' comments on your manuscript. As you can see from the enclosed reviews, all of them agree that the manuscripts presents some interesting findings worth being published. They also agree, however, that the manuscript could be substantially improved in certain parts. Particularly, the discussion chapter needs attention. The reviewers have made a number of very valuable and reasonable suggestions to improve the merit of the manuscript.
I think that the reviewers' comments can be fairly incorporated into a thoroughly revised version of the manuscript. Please let me have this revised version of the manuscript along with an explanation on how you dealt with the reviewers' comments at your earliest convenience.
Best wishes, Gerhard Herndl

Dear authors:
I have now gone through the revised version of the paper. I found that you have addressed the reviewers' comments satisfactorily. I have only one further minor comment. You use in Table 1 Salinity (psu); salinity doesn't have a unit as it is defined as a ratio, hence 'psu' doesn't make sense at all and it is the policy of Biogeosciences to strictly follow scientific conventions.
Similarly, you give the DOC data in mg/l; please change this to microM as all the other org and inorg nutrients are also given in molar concentrations.
After these tables have incorporated these changes and in the text accordingly, please resubmit your revised version.
Looking forward to receiving the amended final version at your earliest convenience.
Gerhard Herndl