The authors have planned revisions that should address, to various degrees, many of the reviewers' comments. My decision is "reconsider after major revisions" because all three reviewers recommended "major revisions." I will send a revised version of the manuscript to at least two of the reviewers for their responses to the revisions.

The revised manuscript sufficiently addresses many of the comments of the three reviewers. The revised version was reviewed by reviewer 1 who stated that their comments were well-addressed. I evaluated the revised manuscript for how well the revisions addressed the comments of reviewers 2 and 3. I recommended "minor revisions" so the authors could address the following remaining comments:

(1) While the authors explained themselves for comments 4 and 6 of reviewer 3, it is not clear what actual revisions were made in the manuscript. The content of the responses is sound but I cannot determine how much of that response is then incorporated as actual revisions to the new manuscript. Some discussion of these responses should be in the revised manuscript, as these comments were substantive, such as about interpretation of the results.

(2) The same applies to Comment 35 of reviewer 2. I cannot determine what revisions were actually made.

(3) Also, it seems the legends for Figure 4 and 6 (blue and red) do not refer to "wet" and "dry" in the case of the C2 scenario, but rather refer to left and right compartments with uniform irrigation. Please check this, and of needed, clarify in the legends.

Please address these comments in a third version. Your responses to these comments can be quite brief, and the revisions length are on the order of a new paragraph at most.

The authors have addressed the final comments in this second revision (third version) of the manuscript. I recommend publication.