Dear Pr. Bishop,

Thank you very much for your careful responses to the author’s comments. Please submit a revised manuscript for further review since one of the reviewers has suggested major revision.

The reviewer thinks that it is hard to tell from your responses whether you fully address the concerns regarding the uncertainties in the fluxes estimates. For instance, a key concern is whether different profiles’ Martin “b” values differ significantly *from one another* and from the “classic” Martin value, and not just whether the “b” values are significantly different from zero, which is the only significance test you have performed. Also, both reviewers have pointed out that a linear fit to log-transformed data amplifies uncertainties, but they feel it is unclear if you plan to change the non-linear fitting technique.

Both reviewers have also mentioned that the number of figures and length of the text need to be reduced to focus on the evidence that supports your main conclusions. As suggested by the reviewers, please make sure to shorten the text in the revised manuscript, synthesise the results and reduce the number of figures.

Kind regards,
Alexandre Mignot

Please see the comments by the Associate Editor.

Dear Jim,

The referee #2 greatly appreciated the second version of the manuscript. Please consider the suggested modifications by referee #2. I look forward to seeing the final version of the manuscript.

Sincerely,
A. Mignot

Please see comments by the handling editor.

Dear authors,
I am glad to recommend your revised manuscript for final publication in Biogeosciences.
Thank you for responding to the reviewers' comments carefully.
Sincerely,
Alexandre Mignot

Dear authors,

I confirm the acceptance of you work for final publication in Biogeosciences
Congratulations!

All the best
Stefano