This paper describes a first attempt to synthesise definitions of interventions known from the literature to affect soil organic carbon. The output of this is an openly available database, DATA4C+, which can be accessed online and downloaded. The target end users include researchers and land managers. The objective is to improve consistency in the terms used to describe land management interventions to assist the ease of use of experimental data in e.g. metanalyses.

The aim is commendable and consistency in definitions and description will undoubtedly aid more powerful analyses of data to be conducted. Since this is a descriptive manuscript rather than experimental, this is reflected in the review.

This work is of scientific value, and as the first attempt of its kind represents a novel contribution. It is well presented and the language is very well written.

It certainly falls within the scope of the journal and should be of broad international interest and therefore warrants consideration for publication.

There are a few points I would like to address to the authors:

1. How was the initial literature search conducted? There is information regarding how certain definitions were excluded, but not how papers were searched in the first instance.
2. I am not sure what value Table 1 gives? I don’t think I understand it (my fault, probably) but think it needs explaining in more detail or excluding.
3. Was there a quantitative method for ‘testing’ the thesaurus? It seems that there were discussions around it but perhaps where was a more structured way of testing the definitions. Can this be explained further?
4. The gatekeepers are listed as Scientific and Technical Committee of the 4 per 1000 Initiative. How often will these meet to discuss new entries? Will previous entries be reviewed?

This paper describes a first attempt to synthesise definitions of interventions known from the literature to affect soil organic carbon. The output of this is an openly available database, DATA4C+, which can be accessed online and downloaded. The target end users include researchers and land managers. The objective is to improve consistency in the terms used to describe land management interventions to assist the ease of use of experimental data in e.g. metanalyses.

The aim is commendable and consistency in definitions and description will undoubtedly aid more powerful analyses of data to be conducted. Since this is a descriptive manuscript rather than experimental, this is reflected in the review.

This work is of scientific value, and as the first attempt of its kind represents a novel contribution. It is well presented and the language is very well written.

It certainly falls within the scope of the journal and should be of broad international interest and therefore warrants consideration for publication.

There are a few points I would like to address to the authors:

1. How was the initial literature search conducted? There is information regarding how certain definitions were excluded, but not how papers were searched in the first instance.
2. I am not sure what value Table 1 gives? I don’t think I understand it (my fault, probably) but think it needs explaining in more detail or excluding.
3. Was there a quantitative method for ‘testing’ the thesaurus? It seems that there were discussions around it but perhaps where was a more structured way of testing the definitions. Can this be explained further?
4. The gatekeepers are listed as Scientific and Technical Committee of the 4 per 1000 Initiative. How often will these meet to discuss new entries? Will previous entries be reviewed?

I laud the authors for undertaking the development of a thesaurus for land use/management terms as they relate to soil organic carbon. I absolutely agree that imprecise terminology hinders our field. Overall, this manuscript is in good shape after the authors have addressed the comments from the first round of review.

I do disagree with the authors that all conventional tillage can be lumped together but I also understand their reasoning. There are well known differences between moldboard and shallow disk tillage (disks can cut anywhere from 5 to 20+ cm into the earth) with the former truly inverting the soil and the later only breaking up the surface.

My only concern, and I’m not sure how this would or should even be addressed in this manuscript, is that there seems to be an assumption that just because the authors have made this thesaurus, other scientists are going to start using it. Is there a plan to promote and educate? Perhaps that is the job of the 4p1000 initiative.