Dear Dr. Kerimoglu
Thank you for submitting your work to Biogeosciences. As you note, both reviewers are positive about the manuscript, however reviewer 1 has a number of concerns for which you have outlined a detailed response. Please revise the manuscript as you outlined, and I will then ask reviewer 1 to give their opinion on this response.
Regards
Perran

Dear Dr. Kerimoglu
I have now asked Referee 1 to review your response the reviewers comments. As you can see they are generally satisfied but have a few further suggestions for improvement. I highlight a few points that require attention.
1. When explaining or clarifying a point made by the reviewer, it should not just be aimed at the reviewer, it should also include any necessary change to the text, and a clear indication of where this has occurred. As the reviewer notes this was not always clear in your response.
2. That there be some comparison with the benthic fluxes put out by the model with actual measured rates, ideally within the same system with reference to the role of benthic organisms may have over this.
3. Tone down some of the overconfident language about the accuracy of the model.

Once you have made these changes I will further consider the manuscript.
Regards
Perran Cook

Dear Dr. Kerimoglu
Thank you for your comprehensive response to the reviewers further comments. For future reference I strongly suggest pasting the key changes actually made into the response. In this way the reviews and editor, don't have to move between documents to assess the detail of what has actually been changed/added.

I appreciate the extra discussion on the comparison of measured benthic processes to those simulated and the possible reasons behind the differences.

I now find the work acceptable for publication.
Regards
Perran Cook