Dear Lysette Muñoz-Villers,
Thank you for the detailed response to the reviewer’s comments.
I went carefully through all comments and replies, and I invite you to prepare a revised manuscript that considers the answers you gave. When preparing a revised version, please take special care to address the critical comments by M. Beyer and A. Barbeta as you have outlined in your responses.
I look forward to reading your revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Matthias Sprenger

Dear Lyssette E. Muñoz-Villers and colleagues,
I am happy to share that both peer-reviewer were satisfied with the revisions and I agree that the manuscript can be accepted after several technical corrections.
Please address the technical comments below when preparing the final version of the manuscript.
1.) Should it be "two investigated dry seasons"?
2.) Line 313: Is this a typo or why were the grouping of isotope ratio (Line 305) and macronutrients and roots done using different depth groups? How can this be then used in the same mixing analysis?
.) Line 469: Should it probably be "sampling dates"?
.) Line 522: references are not correct formatted
.) 621: Change to "On the other hand"
.) Line 649: Is there a ", respectively" missing at the end of this sentence? If not, consider adding "both" in this sentence to clarify that intermediate and shallow applies to both species (B. napus and H. fulva).
.) Line 653: You refer to crops, but use "contrary to our findings". This can be a bit misleading sine you did not study crops. Please rephrase.
.) Table 4: Two decimals shown for Clay at 5 cm, while all other have one decimal points.
.) You refer to the findings of Poca et al. (2019) when discussing the potentially fractionated coffee xylem water in Figure 3b. However, the mycorrhiza seem to cause a depletion in d2H according to Poca et al. (2019, see their Fig. 3). So, can you really support your findings by Poca's findings?
.) Figure 8: I recognize that you changed the y-axis to "Proportion of near surface soil water", but the caption is still with "deep soil water".
.) Figure 8: Reconsider if regression lines should be shown. I suggest to leave them out, since the relationship shown is not significant.