|I thank the authors for the work put in this revision, which significantly improved the fluidity and concision of the manuscript. While I recommend this article for publication, some aspects still need further corrections to ensure the logical flow and avoid some (apparent) inconsistencies. Below are listed a few suggestions along those lines.|
- L46-54: this paragraph seems convoluted and I am not sure it add much to the introduction, since the need the high-frequency measurements has already been stated. I would suggest to remove this paragraph, or condense it in one sentence.
- L86: "The aim of our study is to..."?
- L453-454: The sentence, describing deuterium depletion, seems to run counter to proposed argument so as to why there could be deuterium enrichment in the xylem. Further, I cold not find Zhao et al. (2017) but if the correct reference is Zhao et al. (2017) (https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12753), then this paper does not discuss an ubiquitous response of xylem deuterium signature (as compared to the phloem, depending on the xylem's location, or compared to soil signature). As a result, I would suggest to simply remove this sentence which does not really support the discussion one way or another.
- L498-501: At first glance, it seems to me that the findings in Kübert al. (2020) are opposite to the one reported here, since here the authors first report more obvious d18O differences between in situ and destructive sampling, and d18O is precisely the isotope under "natural abundance". One can however tease out the "considerable differences" between methods found for soil d2H after label1, but it seems that direct equilibrium values are more enriched, running counter to the hypothesis of having more depleted pre-event water sampled as compared to in situ method ? Please rephrase these sentences to better capture the point of convergence/divergence between that study and yours.
- L34: "is" instead of "are"
- L61-62: the sentence reads a bit strange, and is somewhat redundant with previous statement. I would suggest to remove it and modify the subsequent one as follows: "Such limitations can be overcome with high-frequency in situ measuring methods [...] community."
- L294: Replace "Tab." by "Table". Same thing on L298
- L297: "[...] 3 h and 15 h (Quercus), respectively."
- L444: "[...] which is especially visible [...]"
- L493-494: Maybe rephrase "[...] differences among the destructive methods we used." ?
- L495: since "no trend of differences" is mentioned just before (among destructive sampling), I would suggest to start here with "As compared to in situ measurements, d18O values provided by destructive sampling suggest that the latter contains more [...]"
- L498: Kübert al. (2020) is missing from the bibliography
- L528: Marshall al. (2020) is missing from the bibliography
- Kübert, A., Paulus, S., Dahlmann, A., Werner, C., Rothfuss, Y., Orlowski, N., & Dubbert, M. (2020). Water stable isotopes in ecohydrological field research: comparison between In situ and destructive monitoring methods to determine soil water isotopic signatures. Frontiers in plant science, 11, 387.
- Marshall, J. D., Cuntz, M., Beyer, M., Dubbert, M., & Kuehnhammer, K. (2020). Borehole equilibration: testing a new method to monitor the isotopic composition of tree xylem water in situ. Frontiers in plant science, 11, 358.