Dear Author,
Thank you for having finally submitted your answers to both referees. I am directing your revised already uploaded manuscript along with your detailed responses to them.
I hope the process will be fast.
Sincerely yours,
Dr Veronique Garcon

Dear Bei and co-Authors,

I examined carefully the detailed answers you provided to the two referees on your manuscript entitled “Box modeling of the impacts of atmospheric nitrogen deposition and benthic remineralization on the nitrogen cycle of the Eastern tropical South Pacific”. Sincere apologies for my slow feedback on this.

I found you have been addressing very well the numerous comments and adequately implemented additional numerical experiments as required by both referees.
I mean here: input of dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) featuring various DON bioavailabilities, nitrogen deposition according to future scenario projections for 2100, model sensitivities to uncertainties underlying the atmospheric nitrogen deposition, the influence of aphotic nitrogen fixation on the nitrogen budget in your model domain and model sensitivity experiments to spatially variable Martin Curve exponent b.
You satisfactorily put your model results in terms of model fluxes in perspective with independent model-based and observational estimates. As required, you have distinguished results and discussion on the coastal upwelling region and the open ocean, two separate boxes in your prognostic 5 box model. You have reshaped the discussion and conclusion section as to shed some light on an improved understanding of the Eastern tropical South Pacific functioning. You helped the reader by adding a proper summary section and a few more Appendices as supplemental information detailing some further outputs of your box model.
I think the only missing point not properly addressed in your revised manuscript is a bit of rationale on your choice not to consider the dependence of N2 fixation on iron in your box model as requested by Referee N°2. You detailed this in your response to the referees but I feel it would deserve to appear either in Introduction or model description sections of your revised manuscript.

Given this latter point be correctly addressed, I would recommend publication of your work in Biogeosciences.

A few minor details are listed below:
Table 2 page 37: g and h notes: empirical instead of emeprical
Figures 2, 4 and S7: One cannot read the numbers on the purple segments of the colored bars.
Figure 4 caption: … represent the nitrogen fixation rate..
Figure 5: One cannot read the numbers on the green segments of the colored bars.

Best regards,
Dr Véronique Garçon