Dear authors

Your manuscript has been assessed by two reviewers who both suggested publication after minor revision. Thank you for your response to the review comments. I am happy to invite you to submit a suitably revised manscript that should include the changes indicated in your response. Please also consider the editorial comments communicated to you during the initial submission phase and repeated below for conveniency.

Please follow the guidelines of Biogeosciences. The author's response in case of "minor" or "major" revisions must be submitted as one separate *.pdf file (indicating page and line numbers) structured in a clear and easy-to-follow sequence: (1) comments from referees/public, (2) author's response, and (3) author's changes in manuscript. Regarding author's changes, a marked-up manuscript version (track changes in Word, latexdiff in LaTeX) converted into a *.pdf and including the author's response must be provided.

I am looking forward to your revised manuscript. Thank you for submitting your work to Biogeosciences. With kind regards, Fortunat


1) please indicate in the abstract (as well as in the method section) what metric is used for the uncertainty. I guess you provide +- 1 standard deviation around the mean.
2) In figure 8, showing spatial benthic changes, it may be useful to show topography in an additional panel.
3)I suggest a slightly different color scale for fig. 8. As many changes in the deep ocean are zero (or close to zero given uncertainties from model drift) it may be preferable to use white color for a small range around zero to clearly distinguish area with change from area without change.
4) It may be useful to give information on spatial uncertainties in the projections. For example, you could provide additional figures in an appendix or in a supplementary that show maps of the interquartile range in projected changes (analog to Fig 2 to Fig 4 and Fig 8ff).

Dear authors

thank you for providing an updated manuscript version. I am happy to accept your manuscript for publication in BG, potentially subject to technical corrections (see below).

Thank you for submitting your work to Biogeosciences. With kind regards,

Fortunat Joos

Fig 8l shows a clear scenario difference in 21st century O2 anomalies in the upper 1000 m, which larger negative anomalies for SSP1-8.5 than SSP1-2.6. In contrast, Fig 7c shows an almost identical end of 21st century global O2 anomaly (relative to PI) between SSP1-8.5 and SSP1-2.6. This is a bit puzzling and may be somewhat misleading for the reader. I suspect that this apparent difference is related to the choice of reference period. May be the changes in O2 should also be plotted relative to the modern instead PI reference period in Fig 7c to make the projected changes in global mean O2 between scenarios better visible? (Please also check the numerical values of these figures on benthic O2 changes.)

Data availability: It would be a service for the community and likely also increase the impact of this publication if the data used to generate key figures are provided.