General comments:

This paper presents an interesting work conducted on a peatland in Israel. The place was drained to be used for cultivation, then rewetted when problems (fires, erosion, etc.) began to arise. The authors sampled five 4-meter cores in the deepest part of the peatland, and identified three different parts: drained, rewetted, and pristine peat. They conducted Rock-Eval thermal analyses to characterise the thermal stability, stoichiometry and properties of the peat. The results show that rewetting the peatland clearly helped reduce SOM loss, although the rewetted part does not come back to its anterior, pristine state.

My main concern regarding this work was whether it is robust to use Rock-Eval to analyse peat; we know that Rock-Eval shows some limits with highly organic compounds (e.g. litter), which most probably apply to the case of peat. This problem has been addressed in Supplement: the authors took the precaution to investigate this question with LOI procedure. I would still be very cautious when applying Rock-Eval to such organic soil, however on this specific case the results are clear and consistent. This paper is a nice addition to the peatlands knowledge.

Specific comments:

L135: does that mean the WTL was at surface level before drainage? Do we have information on this? (I understand 'old' information is scarce.)

L198: an illustration, similar as Fig.1 in Cécillon et al. (2018), could be useful to visualize how you cut/sum your signals.

L210: why consider only the CO₂ emitted during pyrolysis, and not CO? Same, why disregard oxygen emitted as both during oxidation? More generally, you chose to follow Behar et al. (2001)’s definition of oxygen index, taking CO₂-carbon into account, rather than more recent definition focusing on oxygen only (with stoichiometric correction as in Cécillon et al., 2018; Saenger et al., 2013; Delahaie et al., 2023). Did you consider both definitions before choosing Behar’s?

L245: the explanation for why 22°C and 33°C could figure above, L231, so that we immediately understand why you chose these.

L249: I think the equations should be rewritten formally so as to only contain variables, not mixed up with units. Describe the variables and their units above or below.

L261: the explanation as to why start at -30 cm and not above could be there instead of L277.

L263: why isn’t there a rewetted section in the cores A, C, and D? Perhaps I missed the explanation, but I don’t understand why the rewetting seems to not have 'worked' everywhere.

L288: usually, when talking about 'persistent', it is good to precise which duration you are referring to, as it cannot be forever: does it persist for decades? Centuries, millennia?

L356: there is debate on the significance of TpkS2, as the peak is not always related to the quantity of hydrocarbons evolved during the whole process (you can have a very short peak at the beginning while most of the matter evolves later). Did you have a look at other indices, such as T90_HC_PYR, the temperature at which 90% of hydrocarbons have evolved (as described in Cécillon et al. (2018) for instance)?

L459: sentence unclear; perhaps the subscript disappeared, it would make more sense with it…

L485: also, the priming effect would probably not extend much under the root depth, which you excluded by starting at -30 cm.

L493: did you consider radiocarbon analyses?

L526: the PARTY_SOC model has some limitations, even in its v2 form. In particular, soils with a high SOM should not be treated with this model, as it has never been trained nor tested on such data.

Technical corrections:

General: check for grammar, non-verbal sentences, etc.

General: the abbreviation for gram is g, not gr.

L313: 'purple' as in the caption, not light pink. Maybe homogenise the color with other figures…

References:

• Behar, F., Beaumont, V., and Penteado, H.L.: Rock-Eval 6 Technology: Performances and Developments, Oil & Gas Science and Technology – Rev. IFP, Vol. 56 (2001), No. 2, pp. 111-134, https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst:2001013, 2001.
• Cécillon, L., Baudin, F., Chenu, C., Houot, S., Jolivet, R., Kätterer, T., Lutfalla, S., Macdonald, A., van Oort, F., Plante, A. F., Savignac, F., Soucémarianadin, L. N., and Barré, P.: A model based on Rock-Eval thermal analysis to quantify the size of the centennially persistent organic carbon pool in temperate soils, Biogeosciences, 15, 2835–2849, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-2835-2018, 2018.
• Delahaie, A. A., Barré, P., Baudin, F., Arrouays, D., Bispo, A., Boulonne, L., Chenu, C., Jolivet, C., Martin, M. P., Ratié, C., Saby, N. P. A., Savignac, F., and Cécillon, L.: Elemental stoichiometry and Rock-Eval® thermal stability of organic matter in French topsoils, SOIL, 9, 209–229, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-9-209-2023, 2023.
• Saenger, A., Cécillon, L., Sebag, D., & Brun, J. J. (2013). Soil organic carbon quantity, chemistry and thermal stability in a mountainous landscape: A Rock–Eval pyrolysis survey. Organic Geochemistry, 54, 101-114.

Overall view

This study presents valuable and somewhat rare long-term information from the Hula Valley peatland in Israel, tracking almost seventy years of drainage followed by three decades of partial rewetting. It provides valid evidence that drainage leads to rapid carbon loss in warm-climate peatlands and that partial rewetting can slow this degradation. The data and methods are solid, but the manuscript would benefit from clearer terminology, a more careful interpretation of thermal indices, and a balanced discussion of uncertainties.

I believe it will interest readers studying soil carbon dynamics, restoration of degraded peat, and greenhouse gas mitigation. Still, some interpretations are too confident for the evidence provided, and a few sections need simpler explanations. In particular, the differences between thermal ‘stability’, biological ‘resistance’, and actual field-scale preservation should be made clearer. Some of the experimental assumptions and terminology e.g., ‘tropical’ and ‘warm-temperate’ also need amendment/correction.

Specific Comments

1. Climate description

The site is described several times as ‘tropical’. With an annual mean temperature of about 20 °C and ~ 600 mm precipitation, the Hula Valley should be better classified as warm-temperate or subtropical. The wording should reflect this to avoid confusion with true tropical peatlands.

2. Definition of ‘pristine’ peat

The deep layer is called pristine, but it has been under the same area for decades, with drainage above it. Downward oxygen diffusion or chemical change is possible. Please clarify whether redox or sulfur data confirm that it truly remained unaffected.

3. Rock-Eval results and interpretation

The Rock-Eval data are strong, but some interpretation goes beyond what this method can tell. Higher RI or TpkS2 values show greater thermal stability, not necessarily biological resistance. The discussion should separate these two ideas.

The figure suggests some overlap in OI values between sections, so ‘significant differences’ should be checked.

4. Respiration experiments

The incubation tests at 60 % water-holding capacity probably exaggerate natural respiration rates. The authors note this, but the limitation should be discussed more directly.

The result that rewetted peat produced the highest CO₂ flux is surprising. Possible reasons could be the temporary oxygen exposure, recent organic inputs, or sulfide oxidation but it should be acknowledged rather than presented as a steady condition.

The ARQ values below one likely reflects partial oxidation or iron/sulfur reactions; this is interesting but needs a sentence of explanation and a reference.

5. Two-pool SOM model and Persistent SOM fraction

The model is appropriate and well fitted, but it assumes no new organic input and no loss from the ‘persistent’ pool. Because this area is farmed, these assumptions are not fully realistic. Please mention how they might affect the result.

The estimate of 13- 21 % persistent SOM is plausible. However, the statement that other models like PARTYsoc are ‘inadequate’ sounds dismissive. It would be better to briefly explain why this method might not fit peat with high organic content.

Plus, the metadata (codes and Excel files), show reasonable internal design/structure but mostly represent the drained condition; the distinct ‘rewetted’ and ‘pristine’ patterns claimed in the manuscript are not strongly evident here. Variability within the drained layer and method heterogeneity in historical SOM data could explain much of the reported differences.

6. Sulfur and pyrite

The finding of pyrite peaks below the water table is a good indicator of anaerobic conditions. This part is important and could be discussed in simpler terms: it shows that rewetting successfully re-established reducing conditions.

7. CO₂ emission comparison

The conversion from lab fluxes to tons CO₂ ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹ involves bulk-density and shrinkage assumptions that vary widely. A short uncertainty range would make the comparison to IPCC factors more convincing.

Other suggestions

Figures and tables

Figure 1 should mention land use or rewetting zones.

Color schemes for drained, rewetted, and pristine sections should be consistent across all figures.

Table 2 could list the exact loss-on-ignition temperature used in each historical dataset.

Typo/grammar notes

Typo line 120: ‘hat two main objectives’ should be ‘had two main objectives.

Ensure consistent units (wt %, °C, etc.).

Verify all references, especially Manzoni & Francesca (2024) because this looks incomplete.

Some very long sentences in the discussion section should be shortened for easier reading.

Thanks and Good luck.