I do not have any remarks. The manuscript is not so innovative but the results are applicable in practice. Congratulations to the authors!

Dear authors,

your work is interesting. Some parts are complete. The introduction adequately describes the problem and the state of the art. However, several issues need to solve and a clarification. 

- You declare a "difficult to find"  degraded land (20 m x 20 m sample site) in your study area (ROW 166). This sentence could be important because influence the experimental design. Probably, you must clarify better this point, "the vast majority of the degraded land had been converted to artificial forest and grass vegetation" is not enough ( and without reference). Further, a more accurate definition of degraded land is necessary.

- In your work, you analyze the role of the slope aspect in erodibility and soil nutrient availability. But, in the sample site selection, did you have taken into account the slope gradient? Could it be a driver of a statistical analysis? I think the sites must have comparable morphological and topographic conditions in order to perform statistical analysis.

- Please, provide further information about the soil (and geological too). Did you have used a soil map to define soil? Please, cite it. Provide a complete and correct WRB soil classification, a generic "chestnut soil" is very poor as a soil classification for the scale of your work.  Did you open some soil profiles? further information could be necessary  (depth, horizons, ...). 

- The sites' position map is not so clear, the look like the sites are more or less at the same elevation but no further information emerges.

-  You identify some species as the best candidates for restoration projects. I guess this choice regards soil loss. Which is the situation in this area concerning further natural hazards, such as wildfires and landslides, strictly connected to environmental conditions? Are reasonable to adopt a multi-risk approach in your study area?