The manuscript by Hoffmeister et al. offers interesting new insights into the water dynamics of an agroforestry system. The study is methodologically very well implemented. The manuscript is complete, well structured and easy to read.

I have few general comments:

• The outcome of the study (the most important results) could be better elaborated. This could be implemented in the discussion (content headings for subchapters, summarizing opening or closing sentences) as well as it should be more strongly reflected in the abstract and conclusions.
• In my opinion, the abstract and conclusions would benefit from a stronger revision (see specific comments).
• The methods and results sections sometimes seem somewhat elaborate. The authors could shorten them by omitting some of the less relevant content, but above all by using shorter wording and sentence structure.

The specific suggestions for improvement can be found directly in the pdf document.

I wish the authors much success and enjoyment in fine-tuning their manuscript!

Hoffmeister et al. have provided a manuscript on the Hydrological and Pedological effects of combining Italian Alder and Blackberries in an Agroforestry Windbreak System in South Africa. A relevant and interesting topic. 

This describes a challenging topic, and I must compliment the authors on the wide range of techniques used and the quantity of work that has gone into all the field, laboratory and modelling work. Such studies are very challenging, yet you have used some contemporary and modern techniques. Having said that, I found it possibly a bit too diverse with some gaps that left me wondering what the main take-away results of the manuscript are and suggest further thought on what the useful impacts of this study are.

I'm concerned about RWU study which leads to your AET. You seem to assume if there is a decrease in soil water, that the decrease is RWU, but you don't know what the contribution of irrigation might be? I'm also concerned about the interception storage of 0.664 mm of the Alder trees which may significantly influence effective rainfall. With an LAI of almost 6, I would expect an interception of about 3 to 4 mm. The PET results in some places are in the region of 23 mm, which is very unlikely, if not impossible. The evaporative fraction results also look very low and you claim this means it is a water limited environment and then later that it is energy limited. There was no calibration of the volumetric soil water probes which may need more than just an offset, meaning that the daily changes in VWC may also not be accurate. I understand the challenges of equipment costs but two pits is quite lean for a conclusive result on differences between the two areas in terms of soil water. 

Would it be worth including a graph of solar irradiance and PET? Do you have measurements of LAI over time?

I have made 133 comments in the attached. Some of them are small editorial or grammar suggestions while others will be more challenging and I have included a number of additional concerns as comments.  Apologies for any misinterpretation of the results. I hope my comments make sense and are able to contribute to an improved manuscript in the future.