Dear Mr. Czuba,
Thanks for contacting me in this matter. Here our response:

> 1. The following are cited in the text but not included in the reference
> list; we need full reference entries for each; or, you may omit the
> citations.
> 
> section 2.4, para 1: Kleeorin & Rogachevskii 2003, 2004; should this be
> Rogachevskii & Kleeorin 2003, 2004, which is in the reference list?

Yes; in the text, please replace "Kleeorin and Rogachevskii" by
"Rogachevskii \& Kleeorin". These are included in the references.

> 2. section 4.2, para 2: ApJ prefers to not cite chapters in the text.
> Since this is the only reference to Moffatt 1978, can you provide a page
> number for Chapter 7.11 that we can cite in the reference list?

OK, so please add ", pp.\ 175--178" in the references instead.

> 3. section 4.3, para 6: Should there be a number where the three dots
> are here for D_eta S, D_alpha S, C_eta, and C_alpha?

Are you talking about para 7, starting with "Finally, let us ..."?
The dots indicate an interval of uncertainty, so D_eta S = 1.5 ... 3,
for example, means that D_eta S is between 1.5 and 3. However, one
may replace the dots by a hyphen "--".

> 4. citation: Brandenburg, Rädler, & Schrinner 2007: Do you have any
> additional information for Brandenburg et al. 2007? If this is still in
> preparation, it will be cited in the text, similar to the style for
> private communications, as per ApJ style.

Replace "(in preparation)" by "submitted (arXiv:0801.1320)".
Also, please replace 2007 by 2008 both in the reference, and in the text:
(i) last paragraph of Section 1 where it should read Brandenburg et al. (2008)
(ii) 4th-last para of Sect. 2.3, "...investigated in Brandenburg et al. (2008)."

We have another minor correction that we would like to suggest at this point:

In Section 2.2, in Eq.(13), please change sign in front of +S to -S.

In Section 4.3, 3 lines above (34), change |\eta_{12}^{rms}| to |\eta_{12}|,
i.e. just delete the rms superscript.

In paragraph 5 of Section 4.3, starting with "In interpreting ...",
after the 3rd-last sentence: "Therefore an ...  plausible explanation."
please replace "The same is true" by

   This explanation is further supported by our finding that for constant
   r.m.s.\ values the growth rate is in good approximation a linear function
   of $S$ -- just as observed by Yousef and coworkers.

   An explanation in terms of the incoherent $\alpha$ effect is also suited"

Note that we have here also introduced a new paragraph. Thus in context
is should read 

   "... an incoherent alpha--shear dynamo seems to be a plausible explanation.
   This explanation is further supported by our finding that for constant
   r.m.s.\ values the growth rate is in good approximation a linear function
   of $S$ -- just as observed by Yousef and coworkers.

   An explanation in terms of the incoherent $\alpha$ effect is also suited
   for the nonhelical dynamo of Brandenburg (2005a),
   where $C_S\approx25$, ..."

Finally, there is a really minor problem with our Fig B.1 in the appendix.
Please discard this issue if it leads to any delays, but if not, maybe
something can be done: In the right panel, in the text on the y-axis, it
the division should be removed. I enclose a corrected file f13.eps,
but, as I said, please don't worry if it is not a simple task.

Also, in the references, after the reference Sur et al., please
add ", arXiv:0711.3789"

If there are any further queries, please email me!

Regards,
Axel Brandenburg