This is an interesting paper investigating boreal crop hydraulic traits and their relevance to productivity and drought resistance in Finland, focusing on both perennial forage grass and annual oat yield. The manuscript is well structured, fits within the scope of this journal, and presents the research in a logical and coherent manner with clear figures and sound data analysis. From my perspective, the paper is suitable for publication in BG. I do not have any major comments, but I would like to provide the following minor suggestions:

1. This manuscript focuses on both soil drought and atmospheric drought. However, the term “meteorological drought” is also mentioned in a few places. From my perspective, this may be somewhat misleading and could make the terminology unnecessarily complicated. I suggest consistently using either “soil drought” or “atmospheric drought” throughout the manuscript.
2. I suggest combining paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 into a single paragraph, since they all describe the efficiency hypothesis, safety hypothesis, and plasticity hypothesis. Similarly, paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 could also be merged into one paragraph, as they collectively describe the aims of the manuscript.
3. Lines 50-51: please provide a few specific examples of crops showing phenotypic plasticity under different environmental conditions.
4. As far as I understand, SPY-C is not a completely new model, but rather a coupled (integrated) modelling framework that combines several existing models into one system. Therefore, instead of stating “a newly developed SPY-C model,” I suggest using “a newly developed coupled modelling framework, SPY-C.”