Dear authors,

the two referees have positively evaluated your manuscript and made a number of comments with the aim of improving the manuscript. I ask you to revise your manuscript accordingly and submit a point by point response to referee's comments.

Regards,

Sébastien

Dear authors,

I went through your manuscript and was a bit disappointed by the way you have modified your manuscript and included the referee's comment. In particular, in the discussion section, some sentences have been added without any attention on the whole structure of the discussion.

For example, one of the paragraph of the discussion contains 45 lines which is clearly too long. Moreover, we do not understand what is the main message of this paragraph. This paragraph is made of succession of ideas that oppose one after the other (the difference in C sequestration amonf plant species is explained by the greater C input, which is invalidated later in the paragraph, and finally re-considered to explain the difference in soil C sequestration betweeen soil horizons).

The writting/typos must also be carefully revised. Some examples: a point is needed after "The sequestration..." line 271, the terme that must be added after indicate L260.

I strongly advice you to carefully read your manuscript, take time to think about the new ideas you wish to insert and seriously revise your writting.

Regards,

Sébastien Fontaine

Dear authors,

Your manuscript has been sent out for a second round of reviewing. I ask you to seriously take into account the comments provided by the referee in order to improve your writting. As I had already pointed in my previous report your study present interesting results but they are lost in a confused discussion section. This section must be revised before I can take my decision.

Regards,

Sébastien