Dear Andy and Robin,

Thank you for submitting your paper to Biogeosciences and revising the manuscript based on the input from the 2 reviewers. The paper is well-written and very interesting, especially given the applied aspects of the research. You did an excellent job combining a variety of methods to understand the kinetics and feasibility of aerobic and anaerobic calcite precipitation by ureolytic bacteria. I have a few small edits to suggest (below); however, I am happy to accept your paper for publication in Biogeosciences.

Best,
Denise Akob


Pg. 5 l. 2: S. pasteurii (ATTC 11859) –is this ATCC?
Pg. 5, l. 29: use TEA here since it was already abbreviated
Pg. 5, l. 30-32: this reads awkwardly—you didn’t make the nitrate solution from 1M NaNO3 but the solution was 1M NaNO3. Suggest revising to “…NO3- was added from a solution of 1M NaNO3; ii) a concentrated SO42- solution was made by combining 1M Na2SO4 and 1M Na2S, Na2S was added to quench any residual oxygen and make SO42- reduction possible; and iii) Fe3+ was added from a stock solution of 50 mM Fe(III) citrate made as previously described.”
Pg. 6, l. 2: do you mean anaerobic control here?
Pg. 7, l. 16: please correct sub- and superscripts
Pg. 13, l. 6: growth and pH seem pretty similar between the nitrate and Fe treatments. Its not clear why nitrate was preferentially chosen
Pg. 14, l. 16: correct italics
Figure 4: Give abbreviation TEAs in the figure caption. There are only open data points for some panels, why? Why have OD measurements and not pH after the bottles were opened?
Figure 5 caption: correct spelling of circle

Dear Andy and Robin,

Thank for revising your manuscript. I am pleased to accept your paper for publication in Biogeosciences!

Best,
Denise