Dear Dr. Jaromerska and co-workers:

Thank you for submitting your paper to Biogeosciences. Your paper has received two formal reviews and additional feedback from the readership. Your work can be considered pioneering because there is very little information on consumers' diet in cryoconite holes. As such your paper is worthy to be published in Biogeosciences. However, your paper received mixed evaluations and appears not to be ready for publication yet. I invite you to submit a revised version that likely will be evaluated again by (a subset) of the referees. I advise you to put your results better in context, i.e. document the cryoconite holes ecology to the general audience and articulate clearer your findings, the implications and the limitations.

With best regards, Jack Middelburg, Associate Editor

Dear Dr. Jaromerska:

Thank you for submitting your revised version to Biogeosciences. One referee has evaluated your paper again and believes that you have adequately resolved the issues identified. However, she/he identified some additional ones that need attention (see the referees' report for details). I have read your paper and rebuttal and agree. I therefore invite you to revise and submit a new version that after inspection by me will likely be accepted for publication in Biogeosciences. While revising, please consistently use 15N/13C enriched/depleted or higher/lower rather than presenting 14N or 12C enriched/depleted. This can lead to confusion.


With best regards, Jack Middelburg, Associate Editor

Dear Dr. Jaromerska

I have read your rebuttal and revision and I am happy to inform you that your paper is now accepted for publication pending technical corrections. I have listed a couple of minor technical corrections below.

I look forward seeing it in print.

Best regards, Jack Middelburg, Associate editor

All through in entire text: consider the use of isotopic value rather than isotopic signature. Why? Signature are used for large reservoirs (ocean, atmosphere), otherwise use value. For ‘normal’ sample use isotopic value.

l. 32, to increase their surface area (because it refers to ablation zones).
l. 92/93: … favour lighter or discriminate heavier isotopes..
l. 108: unclear sentence: … increased or decreased the uptake of isotopes to keep its isotopic signature… (I do not understand this message)
l. 127: …emply stable isotope..
l. 182: microL or milliL; do you really add 100 mL, that does not fit in cup!
l. 294-296: Have a look at the significance: 53.33% or will 53 or 53.3% do?
l. 298: … is not equal among glaciers. If I look at the figure I would write ‘… is rather similar…’
l. 323: Replace on the other hand with however, if you do not use on the one hand as well
l. 339: which could be because they potentially consume algae.
l. 375-380: write your isotope text simpler. For instance:…. Which would cause depletion in 13C in isotopic signature… Why not: which would lower d13C (values)