Dear authors,

many thanks for your responses to the reviewer comments. Please provide a revised manuscript together with a point - by - point response to the criticism raised, as well as a documentation of what has been changed in the manuscript. Please also consider the following editorial comments:

- I see reviewer #2's point that the lengthy description of methodology in the paper may be not necessary to convey the general message, but since reviewer #1 did not object this, I leave the choice of keeping the methodological material in the main manuscript. However, I believe that it will still be able to shorten it without loss of essential information
- The Figures on page 9 of the response documennt (Ndep as a function of MAT/MAP) seems relevant enough to be included at least in the SI, if not the main manuscript
- Please make sure that your reviewer responses are adequately reflected in the revised manuscript. E.g. in your response to reviewer #2 comment on line 308, I fail to see how this information will be included in the revised manuscript.

Dear authors,
your manuscript has now seen by one of the original reviewers and myself. Based on this, I am happy to accept your manuscript for publication in Biogeosciences subject to the technical corrections proposed by reviewer #1.
Best wishes,
Sönke Zaehle