Dear Dr. Kintzsch:

Thank your for submitting to Biogeosciences. I have read your paper, the reviews and your rebuttal, and believe that a revision according to your rebuttal will be suitable for publication in Biogeosciences. I therefore invite you to submit a revised version, which after inspection by me, will likely be acceptable for the journal.

With best regards,

Jack Middelburg

Dear Dr. Klintzsch:

Thank you for submitting your revised paper to Biogeosciences. I have read the revised version and I am happy to inform you that your paper is now accepted for publication in Biogeosciences pending technical corrections.

While reading, I identified the following corrections/potential improvements:

- Write out species in full upon first use, e.g. T. pseudonana in l.89.
- Line 42: challenges
- L. 44: replace On the other hand with However because there is no on the one hand
- L. 50, cyanobacteria, as CH4 producers, suggesting
- L. 58: add space
- L. 64: cycling of the organic matter phosphonate inventory: please reformulate, unclear because too cryptic
- L. 81-82: rewrite more actively.
- Sections 2.3 and 2.4 in particular, but all through, please do not use too many one or two line paragraphs.
- Fig. 1: type: stable not stabel.
- L. 154: use . rather than , for digits
- L. 198: was used for each compound
- L. 229: remove brackets from references
- Fig. 3, use . rather than , for digits (r2)
- L. 283: were grown up
- L. 403-404: homo oxo iron (IV) has been identified … intermediate…
- L. 424: even if they were, they still…

I am looking forward seeing your paper in print.

Best regards, Jack Middelburg, Associate Editor