Dear authors,

I have read your responses to the reviewers. Please proceed with submitting a revised version of your manuscript, following your reply to the reviewers. I need to make two comments. In contradiction to your reply to reviewer 2, the methods section does need to be completed with the names and d13C values of the standards used, and the instrument error (based on repeated measurements of these standard in your own sequences) needs to be reported. In addition, the sample prep needs to be included, a reference to Mollenhauer et al is not sufficient as different approaches are described there.

If the authors want to keep the TAC in concentration unit of microg/g sed, please add the TOC content as a panel to the same graph (Fig. 3). As the discussion focuses on landforms, I would recommend to use landform type as a way to re-arrange the panels in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. Fig. 2 currently shows the different panels too small.

Dear authors,

in preparation for my editorial assessment, I evaluated the revised manuscript.

I have several minor comments on the writing, which I evaluated until L 521. Please correct these instances and do a careful reading of the rest of the discussion. Following up on these corrections I will send the paper out for another round of reviews.

Minor editiorial comments on revised version:
L 35: Rephrase, sentence is not correct. Perhaps: three times as much as global vegetation?
L 39. In newly drained lake basins, instead of ‘in newly developed drained lake basins’?
L 45. Write pore ice in two words, poreice is difficult to read.
L 45. This is not logical to me. The thawing point is increased, or the freezing point is depressed. Thawing point depressed would mean that melts less quick.
L 48. Intensified compared with? Specify in the text. Then, improve the connection with the next sentence.
L 59: suggest to rephrase: systems that are characterized by …
L 61. Briefly introduce how Giest and co-authors quantified the degradation signal (which method?).
L 62. Consider using: across different salinity levels.
L 71-73: Don’t include question marks halfway through the sentence.
L 87. “Today’s vegetation communities are dependent on landscape position.”, rephrase to make the English accurate. The composition of local vegetation depends on the position in the landscape? But then also, I wonder if this sentence can be left out.
L 89. Consider if you can write ‘degraded lake basin’ in full throughout the text, to improve the readability. The abbreviation DLB can then be used only for the specific site name.
L 90. Instead of the ground: the soil? The subsurface?
L 114. Use determine instead of decipher.
L 254. Perhaps include a more typical range of CPI for plant material, for you reader’s reference. 82 is extremely high value.
L 226: Please include the original reference for the CPI calculation.
L 260. What would the Paq reflect in your permafrost core?
L 263: “lagoonal”
L 284: “is not affected”, or maybe more accurate: ‘is apparently not affected’? There is a connecting few words missing.
L 309. Specify permafrost upland.
L 310. The n-alkane ratio (which one?). Consider introducing this ratio by a different name in your methods, and otherwise always refer to the ratio by explaining what it reflects.
L 317. At the lake bottom = in the surface sediment? Rewrite to make clear what is meant.
Section 4.1.1. For the reader the term ‘upland’ is not clear. Specify briefly what you mean (fi in L 434) to help with the understanding. Fi: upland permafrost?
L 444 Late glacial in two words (also elsewhere in the ms).

Thank you for performing the editorial changes. This manuscript will now be sent for a second round of reviews.

Dear authors,

I have received three independent reviews of your manuscript. A first reviewer agrees with the changes made, while two reviewers still provide both content as presentation suggestions. Please address these minor comments, which will be addressed by the AE (will not need a separate round of reviews).

Best regards,
Cindy De Jonge, the AE

The authors have adequately replied to two rounds of reviewer comments and made manuscript changes where needed. The manuscript is now accepted for publication.