Dear Jonathan & Amitava,

I hope this email finds you well. Sorry for our late response, as I have 
had to take some holiday from this paper, while waiting for the referee's 
comments. Now they have arrived, hence I am getting back to revising the work.

> I think these results are likely all quite consistent with ours, 
> which is good. The kinetically forced ones look reasonably similar 
> to those in our 2015 ApJ. If I understand correctly, you suggest that 
> the shear-stochastic-alpha effect is the likely cause of this, using 
> your nice analysis of the D_{AS} terms in figure 6. The conclusion 
> seems similar to the more qualitative, visual (and TFM+CE2) analysis 
> from our paper.

Indeed, there are plenty of similarities in the solutions, despite of 
us being at the different ends of the parameter regime compressibility-wise. 
The main difference seems to be that we do not recover equally coherent 
patterns as you in the butterfly diagrams, when magnetic forcing is 
included in addition to the kinetic one. Whether this then means 
that the dynamos operating in our systems are of different nature 
will be difficult to assess (at least with the PC, as incompressible 
simulations are difficult to perform). As per the referee's request,
we also ended up adding magnetically forced full MHD runs to the paper, 
and the butterfly diagrams from those are very similar to our SMHD cases, that is,
with much less coherent large-scale structures than you get.
You may check the revised version of the manuscript in the arXiv now.
 
> As for the magnetic runs, although we of course never tried either 
> the NL TFM or Burger's-like MHD, the pressure force was discussed quite 
> a bit in the JPP article as being a key component of the magnetic 
> shear-current mechanisms (and also the well-known lack of magnetic 
> quenching in unsheared turbulence). The diagrams in figures 2 and 3 
> of our JPP are a bit confusing (it all turned out to be quite complicated...), 
> but a quite general conclusion is that the pressure-induced response 
> is effectively the cause of the MSC effect (correlation between an 
> initial small-scale b perturbation and the pressure response in u causes 
> the EMF to enhance the large-scale field). Perhaps you could add something 
> to this effect to the conclusion (or elsewhere) of your paper? I think 
> it is probably quite an important point for these types of 
> magnetically-induced transport coefficients. If it would be helpful, we 
> could have a chat on zoom soon to discuss some of this? 

We have also looked at this analytically, even though not as thoroughly as you.
Even without the pressure term, there is a contribution to eta_{yx}, 
through the magnetic part of the background turbulence, at least in the 
ideal limit. Have/Could you easily repeat your analysis by suppressing 
the pressure term? It would be interesting to compare our analytical results 
as well. In any case, we have now referred to your analytical work, and
mentioned your conclusion about the pressure term being the main
driver of the MSC.

> Were you referring to the discussion of the appendix in the ApJ paper? 
> Because we certainly didn't mean to argue that the shear-stochastic-alpha  
> dynamo (fluctuating alpha + shear) can't provide amplification (e.g., field 
> growth figures 1 and 2 of our ApJ paper is attributed to fluctuations in 
> alpha + shear). The appendix was specifically referring to the Kraichnan-Moffat 
> mechanism, and various variants that have appeared in the literature. We 
> think that this KM mechanism is unlikely to be important in general situations, 
> but its quite different as shown by Axel & Mitra's 2012 paper.

We remain quite confused about your appendix in the ApJ paper, and further
discussion about it might be in order. Since we are confused, it is indeed
better not to refer to your conclusion in this paper, and perhaps come back to it
later. Hence, we merely now highlight that in SMHD, the diagonal components can, indeed, be
larger than the off-diagonal ones, which is different from what was reported,
e.g., by Brandenburg et al., 2008. 

... They [B08] also reported that the diagonal and off--diagonal components of the $\alpha$ tensor were
nearly equal. In the SMHD cases studied here, this is no longer the case, as is shown
in \Fig{fig:histo}, where the diagonal $xx$ component dominates.

> For the discussion in this paragraph of the introduction it would also be 
> nice to mention that the analytic results (from the PRE) agreed with the 
> reasonably strong magnetic SC contribution (unless, of course, you 
> completely disagree with the general approach of magnetic SOCA calculations).

Nishant is still working on the fully compressible analytics, and we 
might come back to you when he is done. Only then we can fully state
whether we agree or not, although our ideal pressureless case seems
to be consistent, at least when comparing with your equations (32) and (35).
As said, we now mention your work and the prediction of relatively strong
magnetic SC contribution with q values found in accretion disks and
galaxies. In the regime what we study here, that is omega=0, your
work seems to suggest only a weak contribution.

We will keep you posted on our progress; we are now testing the fully compressible 
TFM, and looking more into the significance of the pressure gradient term, 
for example.

BW, Maarit et al.