Dear Dr. Skousen,

I agree with your replies to the reviewers comments. But, I would advice you to include in the manuscript the responses to these comments. For instance, if one of the reviewers asks about subsampling of a litter layer and you reply that because of the relatively short time of the experiments, there was not yet a clearly developped litter layer, then you should include that in the revised manuscript

All reviewer comments were adequately addressed and the replies were included in the paper.

I know this statement was added late to address a comment from the topical editor, but in Lines 107-109 it says "No surface organic layer was present either as a litter layer or as an A horizon because insufficient time had passed for pedogenic processes to occur." Six years is a short time, but noticeable pedogenesis has been observed and documented by authors over time periods that are this short. For a summary of such work, see the data points and trend lines on Figure 1 in Brevik and Lazari (2014). I suggest changing the wording in Lines 107-109 to something like "No surface organic layer formed at this site as either a litter layer or as an A horizon during the course of this study." In my experience working as a soil genesis specialist, this would be a more appropriate statement.

Brevik, Eric C., and Andreas G. Lazari. 2014. Rates of Pedogenesis in Reclaimed Lands as Compared to Rates of Natural Pedogenesis. Soil Horizons 55: doi:10.2136/sh13-06-0017.