Comment on essd-2022-240

the vertical distribution of soil in CEC, base saturation and other for 7 This data of

1. I believe that the authors should separate between results and discussion. The jump between both and the comparison with the litertaure is not always clear and leading to confusion. In this case, it made it really hard to read the manuscript, filter out key messages and critically evaluate them. The most interesting and relevant discussion point is only in the last paragraph. A couple of things I would be more interested in are: Is there a statistical difference between the organic layer, active layer and upper permafrost (you have this partly) and what is the relevance in an arctic greening context. What nutrients do plants mine? Are there any trends. Further, how could hydrology be relevant for future changes in these systems.
4. The 7 presented soil profiles are sampled along a gradient that is not explained. There needs to be a better description of the sample location and discussion of the potential soil pedon variability due to pattern ground landforms or environmental gradients. Furthermore, I also would like to see a map of the spatial distribution of the profiles and some sort of indicator reflecting the mentioned gradient, maybe a satellite image. Turbic histic cryosols can show huge variability within a full soil pedon (sensu JL Ping) and the sample location could determine much of the variability of the patterns that you find in your exchange capacity results. This also means a throughout discussion of cryoturbation as a process and explanation for the seen pattern in exchange properties. I am also not sure of the separation between shallow active layer and thick active layer are relevant. It would be much better to express this in terms of soil type or along the mentioned gradient.
5. It is unclear if bulk density was measured or only interpolated from previous BD measurements? Please clarify this in L 128ff. If direct BD measurement is still possible on the samples, then this should be the preferred method and added to the manuscript. Then stocks of different parameters were measured, but it is unclear to which depth. Calculation of stocks should be done to a specific depth for all profiles. I suggest 1m. Otherwise you compare apples with oranges.
6. What was the average weight of the elemental analysis sample? Were loss on ignition measurements (LOI) performed on a larger sample to confirm the representativness of the elemental analysis sample? If not, then you need to discuss this. 7. I find the interpretation outlined in L213-219 relating the SOC distribution to permafrost degradation very speculative and not supported. How are these soils more degraded? I assume you don't mean eroded or slope processes, but rather a thermal driven thickening of the active layer. Even differences in the thickness of the active layer may not imply a stronger degradation of the permafrost for these profiles relative to others. Most likely their thermal forcing is rather similar at the scale of the study area. Permafrost soils are highly variable and the seen changes may be observed within a less then a meter for any given soil profile for turbic soils. The difference may also reflect different soil development along the mentioned gradient (that was reduced to two soil types, motivation?). Both would by no means be related to permafrost degradation and even loss of SOC from the system. Most likely they rather reflect inter pedon variability or less SOC accumulation due to environmental gradients. If you have a different opinion on this, then I would expect a detailed chemical or structural analysis of this and a throughout explanation of the mechanisms. Again in L306, I dont think this premise of a significantly reduced organic layer due to thawing is supported by the data shown in the manuscript, the study area description or the cited literature. For instance, Schuur et al 2021 report a loss of 781.6 g C m−2 since the switch to a C source in 1990 and a cumulative projection of 4.18-10.00 kg C m−2 by 2100. Your differences in SOC for individual pedons surpasses potential loss as GHG within a century timescale.
8. Language is overall very good, but would benefit from rephrasing a couple of sentences. e.g. L 25, 31,58-63, 291... L 71 I would argue that active layer thickness changes are fairly well understood and quantified.
L79 What do you mean by contrasted? I think you should be more specific here? Do you mean a range of ALT values, or two groups? What are the mean and the SD for these in cm?
L87 Which months represent the growing season?
L 88 Your profiles Mod2, Mod3 and EXT3 have less than 35 cm thick organic horizon. The results for SOC also indicate rather different soil types. What soil type are these then? I assume you used the US soil taxonomy system? L180 Contrasted ALT -The two selected profiles have almost the same ALT 60 and 65 and are the deepest and shallowest in there respective ALT group. Maybe you could give another reason why you selected exactly these two profiles. L200 This increase in SOC due to cryoturbation is typical for the bottom of the active layer and top of the permafrost section.