Dear Quesada et al.,
Thank you for your revision of your manuscript “Variations in the soil chemical and physical properties explain basin-wide variations in Amazon forest soil carbon densities.” This is a solid paper which contributes important knowledge of soil C concentrations throughout an understudied area, the Amazon forest. The science is sound and I recommend publication in SOIL. I support the reviewer recommendations to improve the clarity of the paper, many of which you have addressed in your revision. While I support recommendations like the avoiding passive voice and stating findings more directly, I respect that these are stylistic choices and do not undermine the scientific work.

I was concerned with the response to Reviewer 2’s concern at line 355 (now line 367-8) which asserts that “simple ‘eyeballing’ of Fig. 2 is all that is required for the different variabilities to be appreciated.” It is certainly true Fig. 2 shows this variation, but the sentence on lines 367-8 presents this as a result (“there was much more variation…”), which given the thoroughness of the rest of the paper, feels a bit lacking. Perhaps noting this variation as a qualifier of the previously state results would address the concern (e.g. It should be noted variation in Φclay differed between HAC and LAC…)? I grant this is a minor detail, but I do think it important to be clear and precise. I suggest this minor change when uploading the final version of the manuscript.

Thank you for your work,
Elizabeth Bach

Dear Quesada et al,
Thank you for finalizing the text, the manuscript is ready for publication.

Best,
Elizabeth Bach

Dear Authors,

First of all, thank you very much for choosing SOIL as an outlet for your work. Second, thank you for working with the editor and reviewers to improve this manuscript! Thus, I am happy to accept your manuscript for publication!
best,
jo