Dear Tobias Reiner Vonnahme,

Please allow me to apologize for the delay in reviewing and sending a decision on your manuscript. We have received reports from two reviewers and your detailed replies to them. Based on these and the fact that both reviewers find the topic as under-explored and interesting, I would like to invite you to provide a revised version of your manuscript according to your proposed modifications. It would be reviewed one more time by at least one reviewer before a final decision can be reached. At this point, there are no particular comments from my side.

Yours sincerely,
Evgeny Podolskiy

Dear Tobias Reiner Vonnahme,

Your manuscript titled "Early spring submarine discharge plumes fuel under-ice primary production" has now been seen and endorsed by the reviewer, whose detailed comments appear in the system. In light of the reviewer's advice, I am delighted to say that we are glad, in principle, to publish a suitably revised version in The Cryosphere. I, therefore, invite you to revise your paper to address the remaining comments of the reviewer, before the final, formal acceptance can be made.

Best regards,
Evgeny Podolskiy

Dear Tobias R. Vonnahme,

I am pleased to accept your paper for publication in The Cryosphere.

I hope you will find the technical corrections provided in the attachment helpful.

Regarding terminology used in the title and main text:

Till now, I have never seen a "[submarine] discharge plume" as a way to refer to the glacial plume. For consistency with the literature, I recommend a commonly used term, "subglacial discharge plume." I am not sure if there are strong reasons to do otherwise, as I see that you are using both adjectives interchangeably. However, throughout the text and especially in the title, I suggest avoiding "submarine."

Best regards,
Evgeny Podolskiy