Thank you for supplying detailed comments in response to the reviews of the manuscript. Given the major restructuring and shortening of the manuscript required to address all three reviews, I ask for major revisions.

The proposed strategy of reorganizing the manuscript along more traditional “methods” and “results” lines seems useful, especially as it will reduce redundancies in the text. I look forward to seeing a new conceptual diagram in the introduction to further aid in this streamlining.

Referee 2’s comment 1, expressing surprise at the remarkable consistency in weathering rates between methods reported in this manuscript is I believe a comment aimed at what is commonly referred to as the “field-lab discrepancy” in weathering rates. For a review of methods of measuring weathering rates, and a short discussion of this controversy, I recommend reading Riebe et al. (2017) Earth Surface Processes and Landforms (doi: 10.1002/esp.4052), in particular p. 133-135. I do suggest that this comment be addressed, as it is relevant. This topic also applies to Referee 2’s comment 4.

Finally, on the focus on a narrow rooting zone in this study (one of my comments), I think a comment on the assumption inherent in this focus is worthwhile. Root systems respond to nutrient availability, so if the 30-50 cm depth is depleted, they may grow deeper. The question is to what extent root systems are static versus plastic. You might want to at least acknowledge that thinking of the depth of nutrient access by roots as a static parameter is an assumption. See Hodge in doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.05232-5

Thank you for doing a thorough revision of the manuscript in response to the reviews. The prior external reviews were quite positive, and you have done well to address the problems of organization, length and repetition that they raised. I appreciation the inclusion of a new figure (Figure 1) in the introduction. In my opinion the manuscript is very close to ready for acceptance. I have a few suggestions for 1) clarifying figures, 2) spelling mistakes, 3) use of e.g., and 4) a few queries on citations. All of these are found in comments in the attached copy of the text. I do not think these will take much time to address.

Thank you for attending to all of the reviews and comments on your manuscript, which is in my view, now ready for publication.