The editor agrees with the recommendations by the reviewers that a valuable contribution is provided to the soil science community's understanding of global soil organic carbon with respect to the geographic and data range variety.
Please address in detail the several points of the reviewers especially for the title, organisation of the paper (!), clarity and originality of the paper as well as with respect to the review aspects.

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for your adjusted manuscript. After carefully reviewing the revised manuscript we come to the conclusions that a further revision is needed for the clarity of the paper for the readers benefit.
From the editor’s perspective and from the suggestion from reviewer 2 the manuscript still needs to be reorganized to have a clearer structure and focus. Please clarify what each section focuses on, clarify to which results you refer to. Discuss each point which is valid (e.g. effect of properties, different databases, different wetlands, …and clearly separate processing and results and discussion. The manuscript currently it’s a mixture of methods, results and discussions for example found at L325. The authors refer to a method not described elsewhere, but at the same time referring to results and discussions in the following lines.
Additionally, the editor suggest to make clearer throughout the whole manuscript where the authors refer to HWSD data and where to their own calculated data (e.g. by using specific acronym?). Currently there is too much interpretation freedom to which datasets is referred to (e.g. L271).
The provision of the R-script for some calculations is certainly an asset to the paper. However, the current script cannot be used to reproduce the results as a) input data are not defined (e.g. URL), b) the content of the script contains R- commands while the heading suggest that the GRASS commands are described- the editor questions where is the GRASS part and where are the libraries in grass loaded to do some of the described processing. Are all parts of the analysis contained in the supplementary document for L229-233? Please discuss and revise.


Minor issues:
L116 Suggestion: Review of Existing spatial databases..
L25 BD – if first time us of acronym, please introduce. Please recheck manuscript for occurrences
L40-44. Please provide reference to each of this statements
L169 URL Spatial-analyst.net – while I certainly appreciate TH effort to provide data, a proper reference to the original data should be provided.
L189 remove ‘(‘ before HWSD
Table 1 - extra column with acronyms, revise table to ensure all definitions are included
Table 2 – extra column with the processing steps. What is processing step (-) ? Please clarify if the values are additive or singular. If singular, what happens if they are additive, and vice versa. Please discuss
Please recheck all references in the manuscript. There them to be missing ones (e.g. ESRI, 2002)
Please clarify what is the goal of L415-420 and revise it… where does the ¾ come from ?

Dear author,

thank your very much for your effort to reorganize the paper. We We appreciate it and believe that the readers of the soil journal can now follow your analysis in better detail. Thank you very much for your effort.

Dear authors, It is a pleasure for me to announce that your article is now accepted for publication in SOIL after revisions by referees and Topical Editor and after your modifications accordingly.

Thank you so much for chose SOIL for your interesting and valuable contribution

Jorge