Your responses to reviews appear to be broadly satisfactory and the corresponding changes to the manuscript that you describe are likely to make it acceptable for publication. Accordingly, you are encouraged to submit a revised paper, in particular with additional revision or discussion to address the following continued issues:

-the method of model calibration was challenged and could have been improved beyond manual parameter tuning.

-the use of calendar year is unfortunate given the strong presence of seasonal dynamics at the study sites as well as the focus on legacy effects.

-a figure or table show the magnitude of carryover effects in comparison to the magnitude of current-year controlling factors (weather) would add value as noted by R1

-additional critical discussion is needed to clarify the model's assumption regarding nitrogen buildup during dry periods that then stimulates productivity when rewetting occurs. observational support for this behavior must be presented, or if evidence is lacking, this should be called out openly. some good questions are raised in R1's comments 22 and 30.

-improved discussion of mechanisms is warranted and responses suggest that this will already be part of a revised version.