Dear Author,

Thank you for your revised version of the manuscript. I consider that your answers to the referees are well argued and this is why I do not ask for a second round of reviews. However, I think that your paper would benefit from adding, in your manuscript, some precisions that you develop in your answers.

Regarding the question of why the Sargassum module is not embedded in the global model, your justification is convincing and you added a new sentence about this in your manuscript, which is fine.

But concerning the heavy proliferations in March-June in your simulations that do not seem to be observed (as noted by Referee #1), please discuss this providing some additional details in your manuscript as you do in your answer to Referee #1?

Regarding the role of the recently increased river inputs of nutrients, it looks to me that the first paragraph on p.13 contains some contradictory sentences. You start by writing “This means that 1) Sargassum distribution is sensitive to these forcings, but 2) these forcings alone cannot control the total Sargassum biomass. “ but then you write “For the contribution of the Amazon, this is in agreement with recent conclusions from Johns et al. (2010) and Jouanno et al. (2021).”
First, the reference to Jouanno et al 2021 is missing in the manuscript, I think.
Then if I refer to https://www.insu.cnrs.fr/fr/cnrsinfo/proliferation-des-algues-sargasses-le-role-des-fleuves-ecarte , it looks to me that you conclude that the rivers have no impact; and this seems contradictory to me to the sentence in the current manuscript “This means that 1) Sargassum distribution is sensitive to these forcings, ...”.
Then you go on by writing “the quantification of the role of these different forcing ... remains an open question that will deserve further attention. “ So I am not sure what your conclusion is? Do the forcings have an impact or not? Does this still need to be investigated? Please clarify in your manuscript.

As noted by referee #1 (his comment #5), your findings regarding the (weak) impact of rivers may have to do with the low value of N and P half saturation and you should comment on this in the manuscript.

Finally, following Referee #2's comment about the impact of the eddy-permitting resolution you used, please add in your manuscript some of the discussion you provide in your answer to Referee #2.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Dear Author,

Thank you very much for your revised manuscript that perfectly answers my remarks.

With best regards