Dear Lothar,

I have read the answers you have provided to the comments of the three reviewers and based on that I invite you to submit a revised version of your work addressing point by point each reviewer’s comment. In particular, I recommend that you extend the description of the statistical approach used to analyze the time series, addressing notably, the concern of reviewer 1 as concern the autocorrelation in the analyzed time series and the subsequent reduction in the number of degree of freedoms.

Thank you so much for your efforts,

Kind regards,

Marilaure

Dear Lothar,
I have read the reviews provided by two reviewers of the revised version of your manuscript. One of the reviewers who assessed the first version of your work is satisfied by the answers to his/her comments and provides a few additional comments while another one is asking more justifications on the significance of the trend in O2 and nutrient data. I recommend that you address these last comments in a revised version.

Thank you so much for your efforts,

Kind regards,

Marilaure

Dear Lothar,
I have read the last version of your manuscript and I recommend its publication in Biogeosciences provided that you addressed a few technical corrections listed below.
Thank you for your efforts in addressing all the reviewers comments,
Kind regards,
Marilaure

Minor technical comments:
Abstract line 4 "have" instead of "has"
Section 2.1, line 25: (after “removing the global mean” please remove anomaly )
Page 5, line 16, a bracket is missing NPI (..)
Line 22: Please use SST throughout the manuscript for consistency
Conclusion, line 8, “of data analysis”?
Page 23, first line, “have also been described”
Supplement material
Line 13: shown and not shows
Legend Figure S2: first line, remove concentration for temperature and add red crosses for clarity