Dear authors,

thank you for your detailed replies to the reviewer comments. As you have seen, both reviewers do in general appreciate your manuscript, but they both also flag several points that need to be adressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
Both reviewers and myself agree that the mansucript, at this point, lacks a bit of clarity and would benefit from some re-structuring, shortening and a somewhat stronger synthesis aspect. In other words, please condense out a bit your main findings and please also try to provide a bit more critical discussion of how well your results and interpretations are acutally supported by data.

I am looking forward to receiving a revised version of your manuscript,
best regards,

Markus Hrachowitz

Dear authors,
thank you very much for the carefully revised version of your manuscript. I fully agree with the reviewer that the manuscript has been substantially improved. However, I also agree with the reviewer that it is still too long and the message for the reader gets somewhat diluted. The manuscript thus needs to be somewhat shortened and focused (in particular sections 5 and 6) before it can be accepted for publication. This should only be a minor effort and I am very much looking forward to receiving the shortened version. Best regards, Markus Hrachowitz

Dear authors,

thanks you very much for this additional effort to restructure and refocus the discussion and conclusion sections. The manuscript benefited substantially from that and I think that this is now a very interesting contribution to literature, which I am pleased to accept for publication. Congratulations!
Best regards, Markus Hrachowitz