As you can see the reviewers gave positive feedback on your manuscript. Apart from the observations of the reviewers, there are a few additional minor points that should be addressed in the revised manuscript:
-In the abstract you mention marginally higher carbon stocks and give a p value of 0.009. I assume that this should be changed into 0.09?
-On page 19360 line 9: please change 'bellow-ground' into 'below-ground'
-On page 19360 line 25: please change 'besides then' into 'apart from those'

In general the concerns of the reviewers are addressed well. However, there are some editorial changes that I want you to make before the mansucript will be published:

Line 49: change ‘can covers‘ into ‘can cover‘
Line 66: change ‘in tropics’ to ‘in the tropics’
Line 79: change ‘no clear’ into ‘not clear’
Line 200-202 is unclear. Do you mean:
‘When including other soil types, our disturbed forest had SCS values (61.4 Mg ha-1) were higher than most reported SCS values, with the exception of SCS values reported for a region in Mato Grosso (65.3 Mg ha-1) and another in Rondônia (62 Mg ha-1) (Maia et al., 2009)’ ?
Line 209: change ‘compared’ into ‘comparing’
Line 234: change ‘reason’ into ‘which is’
Line 235: change ‘select’ into ‘selected’
Line 236: change ‘despite than’ into ‘apart from’
Line 240: change ‘against’ into ‘versus’
Line 241-242 is unclear. Do you mean:
‘Soils from areas with tree mortality > 10 % and clay content > 50 % had a SCS value that even reached 31.03 ± 3.39 Mg ha-1.’ ?
Line 289: change ‘besides than’ into ‘apart from’

Best regards,

Edzo Veldkamp