Proxy Archives Based on Marine Calcifying Organisms and the Role of Process-Based Biomineralization Concepts
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a well written and interesting paper. Authors have assessed how far we have come in understanding the biomineralization processes underpinning proxy signatures derived from marine calcifying organisms and how this understanding improved the way we use these proxy archives today. I can only agree with their view. Authors are seeing biomineralization in the context of proxy research as an interdisciplinary field where cross-discipline communication can be challenging due to a lack of background in foreign disciplines. They have done a good job in presenting a concise introduction to the topic, clarifying key concepts and their applicability to proxy interpretation. This paper deserves to be published in its present form.
Author Response
We would like to thank reviewer one for the very constructive and positive review and the recommendation to publish the manuscript in the present form.
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments:
This is an interesting and useful/frank account of how biomineralogy as as interdisciplinary subject could benefit from biologists and geochemists working together. I thought that the examples were well-explained and that the authors bring up some great future directions for the field.
I would recommend the authors take extra care with choosing precise language when referring to some of the mineralogical concepts, such as using the word "structure" instead of "lattice" (which is often misused in the biomineral literature).
As most of the examples/expertise of the authors highlighted in the paper are on foraminifera and coccoliths, I would recommend that the authors mention in the introduction that these will be the primary examples used in the remainder of the paper. As a reader, I kept expecting to hear more about how these concepts apply to mollusks, corals, coralline algae, etc., but I think it's perfectly fine to keep to forams and coccoliths as the primary examples if this is said at the beginning.
For minor comments, please see the PDF.
Thank you to the authors for taking the time to write a nice summary of the state of the field in combining mineralogy, biology, and proxies.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to thank reviewer one for the very constructive and positive review. We addressed all of the minor comments as follows:
Line 115:
Delimited biomineralization space (DBS): the extracellular compartment of foraminifera producing a new chamber.
Is changed to:
Delimited biomineralization space (DBS): the extracellular compartment of foraminifera containing the so-called calcifying fluid in which a new chamber is produced.
Line 130:
In general, this incorporation is expressed by the so-called distribution coefficient KD.
Is changed to:
In general, this incorporation is expressed by the so-called distribution (or partitioning) coefficient KD.
Line 137 – 140 deleted as suggested.
Line 157:
… of which calcite is the most stable one.
Is changed to:
… of which at ambient condition calcite is the most stable one.
Line 191:
As suggested we deleted the word mineral.
Line 195 – 203:
As suggested the word lattice has been deleted at different places.
After line 203:
Line 257:
This “delimitation” is achieved by the pseudopodial net-work which has a particular arrangement during chamber formation [19].
Has been changed to:
The DBS is formed by the pseudopodial network of foraminifera [19]. Pseudopodia are dynamic cell protrusions used for various purposes such as feeding, locomotion, and chamber formation.
The reviewer made a very good comment we added into the manuscript. The sentence reads:
Crystallographers have shown that often unit cell parameters of biominerals (defining the smallest building block of a crystal structure) can be measurably different when compared to their purely inorganic counterparts.
Line 316:
This is not a quote, therefore the quotation mar is removed
Line 400:
Reference suggested by the reviewer added.
Reviewer 3 Report
In this interdisciplinary review paper, the authors assess how far science can go in understanding biomineralization processes in marine organisms using proxy archives and element and isotope signatures. We can agree with the authors that this review can be seen as a very useful short introduction to the topic, clarifying the key concepts of biology and mineralogy and their applicability to proxy interpretation.
Please note: link 47 needs to be supplemented.
Look here please:
References 47 Gilbert, P.A.-O.; Bergmann, K.A.-O.; Boekelheide, N.; Tambutté, S.A.-O.; Mass, T.A.-O.X.; Marin, F.A.-O.; Adkins, J.A.-O.; Erez, 539 J.A.-O.; Gilbert, B.A.-O.; Knutson, V.A.-O.; et al. Biomineralization: Integrating mechanism and evolutionary history Only the authors and the title are listed . There is no information about what it is (the journal article or the monograph), the year of publication is also not indicated.
Best regards,
Author Response
We would like to thank reviewer one for the very constructive and positive review. We completed the incomplete reference mentioned.
