Thank you for your important revisions. The addition of the BGC-Argo data for NO3 are indeed very appreciated and this answers to an important issue raised by both reviewers. Many points were also raised concerning some calculations and uncertainties that have been well taken into account and the manuscript has been well completed accordingly, along with new figures and table. Minor issues such as dates, terminologies, missing references were all taken into account. Important changes have been made in the text following the rev suggestions, large sections were added and others simplified which is basically what the referees asked for.
I therefore consider that your paper can be now published with some minor revisions:
- The abstract still need some work to properly highlight “the main results, their novelty and implications” as requested rightly by reviewer 2. Indeed, in its present form, the abstract, very similar to the previous version does not present clearly enough what is highlighted in the work presented: what are the main messages?
- There is one important point raised by rev2 about the role of the biological carbon pump for LIW fertilization. Although you provided new interesting figures to explore the mechanism of remineralisation using AOU, you are defending you choice not to develop that aspect in the revised ms. I agree that this would probably extend too much the text that is already quite dense, and this is not central for the present work. But considering the work that you have done to answer to this comment, I recommend that you present more explicitly than is currently the case, this interesting follow up, at the end of the conclusion.
- Nitrate dataset: need to mention (section 2.2) that there are 2 sets of analysis and that this study is focusing on high concentrations below the SML (just to be consistent with the data set presented in the introduction paper)
- L23: remove “s” at “floats” « Nitrate profiles collected by the floats » (only one float with SUNA data)
- L243 replace “by the way” by “it has to be noted”

Dear authors,
following recommendations from the editor and reviewers, I am glad to accept publication of your manuscript pending minor revisions. I also feel that the manuscript could be significantly improved and somewhat shortened by checking the language. I have taken the liberty of making suggestions on the attached annotated manuscript up to line 219 (beginning of section 3. results) and would urge the authors to have the final version checked by an English native speaker.

Dear authors,
I am pleased to accept your manuscript for publication, pending on improvements in the text (abstract, results and discussion sections). Suggestions are provided in the annotated manuscript.
Kind regards,
Christine