Dear Dr. Wangdi,

Many thanks for your revised manuscript. You have managed to address the referees’ comments well, and I’m happy in principle for this study to be published. I am also glad to see that you have made your source data available via figshare. Could I kindly ask you to address a number of remaining, mostly minor points that I list below? These are mainly clarifications in the text.

With kind regards,
Jens-Arne Subke

Abstract: Please include areal reference when quoting annual Rs figures, i.e. “14.5 ± 1.2 t C ha-1 broadleaved; 12.8 ± 1.0 t C ha-1“.

Line 6: Either “… serve as a C sink or source…”, or “… serve as C sinks or sources…”.

Line 61: Should this be “0-10, 10-20 and 20-30 cm”?

Line 184: This use of input as a proxy for stock is unclear. Do you have data to back this up? (see also comment below).

Line 258: I’m not sure the word “disabled” works here. Stating that belowground allocation of C by trees is limited should be appropriate to make this point.

Line 260: Better: “However, there is…”

Line 269: This is unclear to me. In steady state, litter C input is balanced by litter C losses, but the pool size of litter is not necessarily equal to one year’s amount of litter. That depends on turnover rates. Please clarify.

Line 310: It was either similar or not… Do you mean “almost identical”?

Lines 315-322: I’m not sure why you give a very approximate soil C budget when stating that you don’t actually have the data to do so confidently. This was not your aim, and I don’t see that this is a meaningful contribution at this point.

Dear Dr Wangdi,

Many thanks for the edits and clarifications on the manuscruipt. This is now in great shape, and I'm happy for it to be published.

With best wishes,
Jens-Arne Subke