Dear authors,

My apologies for the long delay in getting back to you regarding the status of your paper.

I believe overall you have satisfactorily addressed the comments and questions raised by both Reviewers. I will be pleased to accept your paper for publication in Biogeosciences, subject to minor changes being made in response to my comments provided below.

Please consider these minor additional comments and include appropriate changes in the revised version of your manuscript. Then upload the final version of your ms onto the BG interface.

Sincerely,
Julia

------
Additional comments
Please consider the comments below, revise the text and correct all typos before you upload the revised version of your manuscript. I’ve listed several typos below but note that the list is not exhaustive.

The line numbering of the text in red color in the revised text is often wrong, which doesn’t help to identify how/if you respond appropriately to the Reviewers’ comments.

Responses to RC#1
RC1-Line 210 : Please specify how the equation was modified.
Your response that the wording has been clarified so as to more accurately describe the model in l. 252-255 is confusing and likely refers to the wrong line numbers. The section “Model for population growth…” is in l. 230-239 and includes only minor changes compared to the submitted version. Please make sure you properly accommodate this specific comment by the Reviewer in your revised ms.

RC1-Line 596- : In this section, it might be worth to also expand the discussion…in the community level.
In your response, you mention that changes were made into the text in l. 656-661 but I was not able find any change inhere. Please make sure this important suggestion is accounted for in the revised version of the ms.

RC1-Fig 1 : Negative growth rates.
I understand your response. Yet I believe the biological meaning of these negative growth rates should be discussed as other readers may have the same impression as the Reviewers.


Responses to RC#2
Line 217: The description of the applied statistical tests needs a better description…
In response to this comment, I can see you’ve simply added the name of the R functions you used to perform the statistical tests. This does not accommodate the Reviewer’s comment. I believe she/he is expecting you to indicate the steps in your calculations. By the way, in l. 246 (“two formulas including compare_means() and stat_compare_mean()”),you actually refer to “functions” from the R package, not mathematical formula so please correct the text accordingly.


Typos
l. 139 : please clarify « fluorescent lights were rearranged »
l. 168 : remove “the” in « very two days the for constant »
l. 173 : consider adding « at » into the following sentence « always maintained >100 μmol L-1 and >10 μmol L-1 »
l. 199 : correct « rations »

l. 212 : remove « s » at the end of “techniques” in « using a 14C incubation techniques » or correct sentence appropriately
l. 362 : Please define abbreviation or write in full “Cal/Photo ratios”
l. 459: Remove “s” at the end of “rises”
l. 597: A word must be missing here “of a Southern Hemisphere cultured at”
l. 676: Please write in full “didn’t address »
Acknowledgement section: Please consider acknowledging the Reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions.

Dear authors,
Thank you for addressing my final minor comments and providing a fully revised version of your manuscript. I am pleased to accept your paper for publication in BG.
Sincerely,
Julia