Dear, Cinzia Bottini and Elisabetta Erba
Your manuscript has been reviewed by two reviewers. As you saw, those reviews are quite positive and only point for minor revisions. You apparently ready to answer them positively. Also I would lke to suggest some changes in the figure and their captions :
In general, I found the figures complex, and the captions would increase in readability if the different inserts would be marked with a, b, c, d… or 1, 2, 3….
In Figure 6 : you wrote “The NI of Furlo and Monte Petrano are both presented in the composite curve (Fig. 6) since are interpreted to reflect local differences » Why do you mention (Fig.6) in Fig.6 ? Something is missing between “since” and “are”.
Also, in Figure 6 : you wrote: “The modified TI (m-TI) takes into account R. asper abundance (%) and it is calibrated with TEX86-SSTs (°C) recalculated following Kim et al. (2010). “ Since it is calibrated and since TI is ranging from 0 to 100 and here it goes in temperature, you should change in the figure the Title of the last scale (now m-TI) in C-m-TI or NannoSST or anything you like to mention that it is not in a "TI scale".
In Figure 7 you should mention in the caption that the SST come from Figure 6 or/and that it is calibrated to TEX… Also the estimates of temperature and fertility are not pointed into the caption when you describe every else. That could confuse a rapid reader who could interpret that your temperature come in fact are from Kanungo et al. This would not be possible if after the first sentence of the caption you write something like “(coloured lines)”.


Could you submit your revised manuscript to Climate of the Past? I will check it before taking the final decision.
Yours.
Luc Beaufort