I would like to thank the authors who responded to most of the comments and suggestions by making relevant additions to the text.
In particular, all responses to reviewer 1 have been nicely addressed.
For reviewer 2, although the authors gave detailed and very well argued (and therefore convincing) responses, they did not propose additional text in the manuscript to some comments. However, I believe that their argumentation is also necessary in the revised version (even by adding only a short summary) for readers that could have the same remarks as Rev1. This concerns: the difference between expected and measured DOC concentration in control and the possible consequences on the calculations made in the different treatments for LDOC and BGE; the choice of using BP rather than BA to calculate BGE (an interesting point); most of the arguments developed in your response could be added to the Results section.
I would encourage the authors to provide those short additions before the paper can be accepted for publication.
Thank you

Dear authors,
I am glad to accept publication of your manuscript following the minor revisions proposed by the handling editor Cécile Gieux.
Sincerely,
Christine Klaas