Dear authors

Your paper has been seen by two referees and you provided extensive replies especially to the issues raised by referee #1. Both referees raised significant issues about the clarity of the explanations and structure of the manuscript but both strongly suggested that this paper should be published after major revisions in CP. Your replies to the referee comments corroborate my opinion that this paper will eventually be ready for publication in CP.

As referee #1 had quite substantial comments and as you suggested substantial restructuring of the manuscript (for instance removal of the discussion of Ca2+ concentrations on the layering), I will decide after reading the revised version of the manuscript, whether a second round of reviews will be necessary.

Accordingly, I would urge you to carefully include all the changes suggested in your reply in particular where the referees asked for more detail on the methods both in terms of analytical approaches as well as in terms of data evaluation. Just as an example a clear mathematical description of the artifact detection is needed.

Looking forward to the revised manuscript

Regards Hubertus Fischer

Dear authors

thank you for you thorough revisions. I took the time to read you paper carefully and apart from some minor changes as outlined in the pdf file attached, you have met the points of criticisms of the referees sufficiently.

Please revise your paper carefully taking into account the changes and comments/questions in my editors review (pdf attachment) and provide a re-revised version of the manuscript together with a point-to-point reply to my comments. Probably the most important editorial changes concern merging and repositioning some of the figures in response to the criticism of referee #1.

All the best
Hubertus Fischer