The manuscript "Rates of palaeoecological change can inform ecosystem restoration" focuses on data analysis for the past 150 years  from Lago Grande di Avigliana lake.  This is a very well written manuscript dealing with relevant environmental concerns, such as biodiversity and its restoration. I think that one of the  relevant messages that makes this paper very interesting  is the documentation of  past acceleration of community transformation and the use of  palaeoecological indicators. I would also like to highlight that the authors made an effort to include policy context.  Overall, the paper is clear, well-structured, methodologically robust, and with an excellent quality. However, there are some minor aspects that to me requires a bit of improvement.

1) why the authors focused on Lago Grande di Avigliana requires a bit more of explanation. I'm assuming that might be for the quality of the chronology and available data (some information on the section called "context"). However,  to me, the manuscript could improve if the authors include a paragraph justifying the choice of study site and also why the results from this lake have the potential to help improving our understanding on restoration of ecosystems.

2) I found methods a bit short and limited in detail. How about including some of the information currently placed in  the appendix in the methods section? I would suggest at least to include in the main text A1 Material.

Very interesting manuscript!

The paper explores ideas related rate-of-change (RoC) analysis, using a published diatom and pollen dataset from the Italian Alps to move beyond RoC analysis of palaeoecological assemblages and towards ecological properties. They extend ideas of RoC analysis to look at the amount of change relative to baseline conditions. The main point is that whilst RoC analyses on assemblages can detect points of assemblage shifts, they can mask other important details (e.g. whether the changes are positive or negative in the context of management/ conservation). In moving towards temporal analysis of ecological properties the authors are also making a small step towards acknowledging palaeoecology’s potential contribution to assessing Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs).

I think the paper makes an important contribution since RoC curves (e.g. Mottl et al 2021) should always be assessed in the context of the ecological changes that are underlying them and this paper helps emphasise this point. The move towards highlighting the relevance of of palaeoecology for IPBES and EBVs is also very welcome.

One important caveat is that even some derived ecosystem properties (e.g. in this instance, tree cover inferred from arboreal pollen percentages) are also context dependent. Whilst increases in tree cover (i.e. ‘positive’ rates of change) might be viewed favourably in the context of the ecological restoration for this alpine ecosystem, in other locations (e.g. grasslands) increases in tree cover might not necessarily be representative of a positive change in terms of restoration (e.g. Veldmann et al. 2019, DOI: 10.1126/science.aay7976). Thus, some derived ecosystem properties are likely to be as context dependent as the pollen/ diatom assemblages themselves. This is an important point to make if the approaches used on ecosystem properties are further generalized and I think this should be emphasized in the discussion.

A second critique, particularly from the pollen data, is that there are obvious potential representation / preservation issues that are not taken into account when RoCs on pollen assemblages are analysed, which can be addressed by correction by pollen production values and through methods such as REVEALS modelling. If palaeoecology is going to move towards EBVs then I think here would be as good a place as any to at least reference this critique in reference to recently published RoC analysis and the analysis of the ecological properties derived in this specific study.

The methods are quite brief in the main text, but even if I understand the papers is limited on space, I think you should move the paragraph about which baseline periods were selected from the appendix to the main methods section. It was also not clear to me how the black lines are calculated in Figures 3c-f, and the significance of using two different reference periods of the pollen data (e.g. Figures 3e and A2) is not really discussed in either the main text nor the appendix. These revisions could help the reader.