Dear Authors:
Thank you for contribution to Biogeoscineces. I studied your responses to referee comments and revised manuscript. As you stated, I found that the manuscript was shortened (for text body, from 577 lines of the first submission to 530 lines of the revised one) and re-organized. By strengthening carbon stock evaluation, the manuscript became more focused. Although this manuscript looks still rather technical, I believe it addressed an interesting theme of carbon cycle and provides useful information. Therefore, I conclude that this manuscript would be published after technical corrections (see below).

Technical corrections
Title
If you put more focus on carbon stock, why did you remove “carbon stock estimates” from title? Moreover, in a broad sense, “peat thickness” is a part of “peat soil characterization”. Please check again.

Section titles in 2. Methods.
Please clarify which section you explained the method of carbon storage estimation. For example, “2.4. Coring and carbon stock calculation”.

Figure 2 and Section 4.1 (or 3.1?)
I still could not understand what is “woody area”. Can you give short explanation for woody area at somewhere earlier in the manuscript? Is that something like a woody-debris layer?