Dear authors,
I recommend to continue the publication process of your paper after a careful and thorough revision addressing the issues raised by the referees.
Best regards,
Nikolaus Kuhn
Topical Editor

Dear authors,
your manuscript has received a mostly positive review. We would like to ask you to react to the comments and resubmit a revised manuscript.
Best regards,
Nikolaus Kuhn
Topical Editor for Soil

Dear Olivier et al

Apologies for the delay in accepting your revised manuscript, I have been on vacation.

It looks to me from the manuscript records that there are a few minor technical corrections that need attending to that were raised by referee 1 in the report on the revised manuscript. I have pasted them below. Could you attend to them and then we can get the manuscript passed through to the production department.

I have just a few corrections/requests.
Line 268 Spectroscopy measurements in the visible (what?)
Line 274 rather small measuring area (add comma)
Line 318 three set (add s after set)
Lines 629-635 are unclear and could be rewritten to clarify your point.
Line 637. Moreover not needed at start of sentence...just state the topic sentence point...reinforcement not needed here.
Line 649. Moreover again not really needed. Perhaps check throughout for such usage.
Line 656. What abandoned mining sites? Unclear.
Line 793. were estimated to...is "to" needed or the right word? Check other lines also like 795.'Line 810...Moreover used again...necessary? This sentence is also a weak point

All the best and thanks for submitting to SOIL

John Quinton