The paper deals with the effect of vegetation on nutrient avaiability in high-elevation ecosystems of the Andes. The subject is interesting and the paper is well written. However a few concerns arise and have been listed below:

Line 22: Why are particularly interesting?

Line 32: change into ….with effects on nutrient cconcentrations in rivers and high-mountain lakes.

Line 39: change into….. that releases nutrients into the biological environment (Chadwick et al., 1999; Hedin et al., 2003; Dixon et al., 2016).

Line 48: do you exclude the input through the wet depositions? I think that rainfall not only influence the vegetative growth cycles but represents also an input of nutrients to the soil, expecially relevant at high elevation.

Line 64: change into…. the role of vegetation communities and soil hydrology in influencing the soil nutrient availability

Line 68: change into…..because persistently at cool temperatures, ranging between 2 and 10 °C…..Do these values represent the mean monthly maximum and minimum temperatures? Moreover, do the mean annual precipitation include also the snow water equivalent?

Lines 71-72: Do you have data on soil carbon stock in the area?

Lines 73-75: Do you assume that the dissolved organic carbon is leached from the soil particularly rich in organic carbon?

Line 92: change into asl

Line 97: this value of precipitation is significantly different from what reported in line 68

Figure 1 Caption: Since the forest is present only in poorly accessible sites (by humans?) means that the other land covers (cushion-forming plants, tussock grasses) have been shaped by human activity? Moreover in the figure maybe better soil profiles than soil samples.

Line 131: please add the standard deviation to the average soil depths.

Lines 132-133: How did you calculate the depletions in base cations?

Line 177: Please specify what kind of genetic horizons are the upper horizons

Line 222: model

Line 228: was

Line 266: Caption Figure 1. Maybe better Depth-distribution

Line 268: Caption Table 1: explain the meaning of Y and N. Yes? No?

Line 274: Table 2. Did you test if the mean concentrations were different between the vegetation types?

Line 299: Does this impermeble layer origin from pedogenetic processes?

Figure 7: I think that the sentence “the high values recorded at the beginning of the measurement period

(October 2022) are likely due to the incomplete stabilization of the lysimeters before the first sampling” should be moved in the text and better explained. For example it seems that this phenomenon is particularly relevant in the forest, for Mg, Ca and K. Why?

Line 385: Is this a native forest?

Line 434: Do you exclude for P a potential contribution of soil microbial immobilization?

Line 457: Here and previously in the Introduction, please specify better what kind of anthropogenic disturbances could be expected in the area

Very nice work on the effects of vegetation types on nutrient availability and supply in the paramo.

I have only one general concern which relates to the ´Discussion´ section. I feel it may be reduced to some extent. As I read this section, it seemed I was reading a ´Results and Discussion´ section as many of the results were again described. Additionally, I am not used to finding so many figure and table referenced in a Discussion section.

I have also added some comments, suggestions and corrections on the manuscript itself, which the authors need to consider before publication.