The authors carefully addressed most of the issues raised by the 2 referees. They modified the paper accordingly to the referee comments and suggestions. I think that the paper is improved a lot and it is almost ready for publication.
I added edits and comments in the attached file (please check they did not change the sense of the sentences); however, I recommend a further check of the English before final publication.

Dear authors,
the associated editor recommended publication with minor revisions based on your answers to the reviewers. I am happy to accept this decision provided the manuscript has been revised accordingly including recommendations to improve the English.
Sincerely,
Christine Klaas

Dear Author,
Unfortunately the language (English) of the manuscript does not have the acceptable standard for publication. In the time available before submitting my decision I revised the manuscript and made suggestions for improvements up to p. 10 (see annotated manuscript). I urge you to thoroughly check the remaining text before resubmission.
Sincerely,
Christine Klaas

Dear author,
The text of the manuscript has been greatly improved, however, in particular the results section, the text warrants further polishing (comments are given in the annotated manuscript). I also noticed one issue that should be clarified:
- Lines 445-448: I fail to understand the argument here. In the text before increases in windspeed associated with rain events are presented as driving MLD and NO3 increases between the 25th and 27th of May; while here the authors shift to invoque dry deposition without presenting any quantitative basis. By looking at Fig. 4 average ML NO3 concentrations increase from ~20nM to ~125nM. This implies that N stocks in the upper 20m of the water column increase from 400 µMol/m2 to 2500 µMol/m2 necessitating an N input of 2100 µMol/m2 ( 2.1 mmol/m2). Based on the deposition values given in table 3 and table S2, it seems clear that neither of these (wet or dry) terms can explain these changes in such a short period of time. This is compounded by the fact that these changes actually occur throughout the water column including below the NDLb. Do you have an explanation? Could it be that different water masses were sampled at ION?

Also, in lines 731-732 you mention "considering both the local rain fluxes and the horizontal oceanic mixing of water masses affected by the rain front.". However, horizontal mixing was not considered here. Can you clarify what is meant by this?

Sincerely,
Christine Klaas

Dear authors,
The text of the manuscript has been greatly improved, however, in particular in the results section, the text warrants further polishing (comments are given in the annotated manuscript). I also noticed one issue that should be clarified:
- Lines 445-448: I fail to understand the argument here. In the text before increases in windspeed associated with rain events are presented as driving MLD and NO3 increases between the 25th and 27th of May; while here the authors shift to invoque dry deposition without presenting any quantitative basis. By looking at Fig. 4 average ML NO3 concentrations increase from ~20nM to ~125nM. This implies that N stocks in the upper 20m of the water column increase from 400 µMol/m2 to 2500 µMol/m2 necessitating an N input of 2100 µMol/m2 ( 2.1 mmol/m2). Based on the deposition values given in table 3 and table S2, it seems clear that neither of these (wet or dry) terms can explain these changes in such a short period of time. This is compounded by the fact that these changes actually occur throughout the water column including below the NDLb. Do you have an explanation? Could it be that different water masses were sampled at ION?

Also, in lines 731-732 you mention "considering both the local rain fluxes and the horizontal oceanic mixing of water masses affected by the rain front.". However, horizontal mixing was not considered here. Can you clarify what is meant by this?

Sincerely,
Christine Klaas