Dear authors,
I appreciate that you have taken into consideration the referees' suggestions, regarding both on the content and on the extension of the manuscript; and have given proper and substantiated response to the referees' questions. Thus based on your responses to the referees' comments I invite you to upload your revised manuscript, following the ammendments and corrections you have described.

Dear Lennart Thomas Bach, thank you for following the comments and suggestions of both rewievers. We consider that the manuscript is almost ready for publication, subjected to a few technical corrections in the main text and figures, which I list here.

Line 63, ‘there was little opportunity for blooms’ There was the bloom of A. sanguinea. Better rephrase here. And, did not the lag senescence phase of A sanguinea also contribute to the constancy of biogeochemical pools and fluxes during the experiment?
Line 82, ‘leads..’ - Better use 'contributes' instead of 'leads', because there are other major factors causing the OMZ.
Line 135, and throughout the text and figure captions: ‘Pacific water’ is perhaps still too general, as mentioned by referee 1. Suggestion: 'Southeastern Pacific water' when referring to the experiment in the main text, and 'SE Pacific' in the figure legends.
Line 240. Explain why did you not keep the same depth range sampling throughout the experiment.
Line 492, ‘Dissolved iron (Fe) concentrations were non-limiting in all mesocosms’ – add reference here
Line 531. Please replace ‘Bernales in prep.’ by ‘Bernales et al., this issue’ or ‘A. Bernales, pers. comm.’
Line 532. ‘Cryptohypheae’ – is ‘Cryptophyceae’ – also, was the genus of species determined? If so, it would be worth to mention here.
Line 684. ‘observations…’ – change to 'observed initial conditions...', since the mesocosm will not be entirely representative of the open water conditions anyway.
Line 747. Add ‘near surface’ after ‘phytoplankton’
Line 842-835. ‘This observation is inconsistent with a previous shipboard incubation study in the Peruvian upwelling system (Franz et al., 2012b) and also contrary to our expectations based on metaanalyse s (Hillebrand et al., 2013).’ - Consider observation by rewiever 2 here, since this passage was not deleted as indicated in the authors' response.
Line 860. ‘The transition from diatom to dinoflagellate domination was likely triggered by N-limitation, not Si-limitation’ – please briefy explain or refer to section or figure that supports this statement.

Line 1175-1176. (Figure 4 caption) Add ‘Dissolved’ before ‘inorganic and organic concentrations…’. Also, explain what blue and red curves mean.
Figure 5. In your response to Rewiever 1, it was stated that the black line is a mistake. Please remove it from the plots.
Figure 9. In your response to Rewiever 1, it was indicated that the A.sanguinea drawing will be improved by including the flagella, but change is missing.