General comment: The manuscript is overall well organized. However, the paper needs a little more revision to improve the overall quality.

We thank the reviewer for the positive feedback and constructive comments. The manuscript has been revised throughout for clarity, consistency, and figure quality.

Introduction – Lines 72–76: Clearly and concisely state the specific research objectives of the study.

Revised per suggestion. The paragraph now clearly states: “The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of different mulching treatments—plastic mulch, high-residue rolled cover crops, and a living mulch—on weed incidence, soil health indicators, and productivity in an organic strawberry production system.” (Lines 75–78)

Line 86: Clarify the hypothesis H4.

H4 has been rewritten to specify the expected relationship between seasonality and soil biological indicators: “Seasonal dynamics (from spring to summer) were expected to exert stronger influence on soil biological indicators such as CO₂–C and MAC than the main effects of mulching treatments.” (Lines 119–121)

Materials and Methods – Line 96: It would be helpful to present a figure depicting the timeline of the different cropping systems evaluated. Please provide more details on production management practices. Was there any fertilizer application during strawberry production?

A new schematic timeline figure (now Figure 1) was added, showing cover-crop establishment, roller-crimp termination, and two subsequent strawberry seasons (2023–2024). The text in Section 3 was expanded to clarify that Sorghum 1, Sorghum 2, and Buckwheat were seeded and terminated before transplanting, while Plastic and Clover were established at transplanting. We also added fertilizer details: compost (10 t ha⁻¹) incorporated pre-planting and organic fish emulsion (5–1–1 NPK) applied biweekly during fruiting. (Lines 180–192)

Results: The quality of all the figures should be improved.

All figures were replaced with high-resolution (≥300 dpi) versions, standardized fonts, and clearer labels. (Figures 1–5)

Lines 226–230: Report percentage increase or decrease of one treatment over others instead of repeating table numbers.

Text revised to present relative differences. Example: “Organic C in Sorghum 1 was 43 % higher than Plastic and 40 % higher than Buckwheat (P ≤ 0.01).” Similar revisions were made throughout the Results. (Lines 520–528)

Mention the units of all variables (SOM, OC, Org. N, CO₂) in Table 2.

Units (% or ppm) have been added in Table 2 column headers.

Table 2 inconsistency: Total N in preharvest is marked non-significant, yet mean comparison letters differ (a/b). Please clarify.

Corrected. Total N was significant (P ≤ 0.05); the table and text were updated to reflect this. (Table 2; Lines 495–500)

Line 309: Mention percentage increase and provide mean comparison letters in Figures 2 and 3.

Figures 2 and 3 now include mean comparison letters above treatment symbols, and relative (%) differences are described in the Results text. (Lines 630–640)

Discussion – Line 379: Explain why 2024 was characterized as lower-yield conditions.

Added explanation: “Yields in 2024 were lower overall, likely due to below-average early-season temperatures and two extreme heat events during May–June that reduced fruit set. Increased pest pressure and shorter harvest duration also contributed to reduced marketable yield.” (Lines 742–748)

Lines 382–389: Instead of repeating results, provide scientific explanation for differences among treatments.

The paragraph was rewritten to interpret results mechanistically (microclimate buffering, residue decomposition, nutrient cycling) rather than restating numbers. (Lines 749–757)

Line 400: Clarify why plastic mulch performed poorly in year 2.

Added explanation: “Plastic mulch yielded less in 2024 partly because elevated root-zone temperatures during heat waves may have impaired fruit set, whereas residue-based systems buffered soil temperature and moisture.” (Lines 758–762)

Overall comment: Paper can be accepted if the above suggestions are addressed.

All reviewer suggestions have been incorporated. We believe the revised manuscript addresses each point and improves readability, methodological clarity, and interpretation.

General comment: The manuscript is well-written, logically structured, and presents rigorous statistical analysis.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thorough reading and positive evaluation of our manuscript. We appreciate the constructive feedback and have addressed all points below to strengthen methodological clarity and discussion balance.

1. Figure 1 shows noticeable garbled text, possibly due to preprint or image quality.

We have corrected this issue by replacing Figure 1 with a high-resolution (≥300 dpi) version. All text, labels, and legends have been reformatted for clarity and consistency across figures. (Figures 1–5)

2. The manuscript describes incomplete termination of sorghum cover crops requiring manual removal, which could compromise standardization and reproducibility.

We acknowledge this important point. Additional detail was added to Section 3 (Materials and Methods) to explain that incomplete termination was a known challenge with sorghum-sudangrass due to high biomass and stem rigidity. This was addressed consistently across all sorghum plots to maintain comparability. We now state that all regrowth removal followed a standardized protocol (manual clipping within 7 days post-termination, residues redistributed evenly). We also clarified this limitation in the Discussion as a practical constraint of roller-crimping in high-biomass systems and emphasized the need to optimize maturity stage and pass number for improved reproducibility. (Lines 190–193; 756–762)

3. Soil organic matter measured by loss-on-ignition (LOI) may overestimate SOM, especially in high-pH soils (pH = 7.84). Cross-validation would reduce bias.

We appreciate this insightful observation. We have clarified in Section 4.1 that the LOI method was selected for comparability with regional soil health benchmarks but may slightly overestimate SOM in alkaline soils. We have added a statement acknowledging this limitation and suggesting future cross-validation with dry combustion or total carbon analysis for improved precision. (Lines 280–286)

4. Yields were high in 2023 but declined in 2024, yet the manuscript attributes this solely to “lower-yield conditions.” Please discuss potential causes.

We expanded the explanation in the Discussion (Lines 742–748) to include environmental and biological factors: lower early-season temperatures, two extreme heat events during flowering, increased pest pressure, and a shorter harvest window—all of which contributed to yield decline in 2024.

5. Many indicators showed no significant differences, but the discussion emphasizes positive trends without exploring reasons for non-significant results.

We revised the Discussion to better balance interpretation of significant and non-significant results. We now explicitly note that many soil health indicators did not differ significantly due to short experimental duration, high spatial variability, and the relatively coarse resolution of biological metrics such as CO₂–C and MAC. These points were integrated into the first paragraph of the Discussion. (Lines 728–735)

6. Why do each of the figures and tables have two captions, one above and one below (e.g., Figure 2)?

Thank you for catching this formatting duplication. The repeated captions were generated during layout conversion. All redundant captions have been removed, and figures now display a single caption below each image, formatted per MDPI guidelines.

7. The replication number (n = 4) is low for a field experiment. Why were additional replicates not included?

We acknowledge this limitation. The study followed standard practice for multi-season, large-plot strawberry trials under certified organic management, where land and labor constraints restrict replication. Each plot (≈12 m²) contained 60 plants, ensuring robust within-plot sampling. The experiment was replicated across two full production years to strengthen inference over time. We have clarified this in Section 3 (Experimental Design) and noted the limitation in the Discussion. (Lines 210–214; 760–762)

Overall comment: This study effectively addresses cover management in organic strawberries; minor clarifications requested.

We thank the reviewer for the encouraging summary and confirm that all requested clarifications have been incorporated to improve methodological transparency and interpretive balance.

1. The paper lacks a variant of conventional strawberry production without mulching with natural or artificial material.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The current experiment focused on comparing mulching systems that are relevant to certified organic strawberry production, where bare soil (no mulch) management is rarely practiced due to high weed pressure and soil erosion risk in coastal California. However, we acknowledge that inclusion of a bare-soil control could help isolate the effects of residue and plastic covers on soil microclimate and yield. This point has been added to the Discussion and Conclusions as a recommendation for future studies. (Lines 765–771)

2. A large number of land (soil) properties were analyzed, which logically do not change in a short time; therefore, there are no statistically significant differences.

We agree with the reviewer’s observation. The text in the Discussion (Lines 728–735) now explicitly notes that many soil parameters such as SOM, OC, and total N change slowly over time and may not show significant responses within two cropping seasons. This has been highlighted as a limitation and a rationale for continuing multi-year monitoring to detect cumulative effects.

3. There are large differences in yield between years, months, and especially among mulch treatments tested.

We have clarified in the Discussion (Lines 742–748) that yield variability between years was mainly driven by climatic factors (cooler spring temperatures and heat stress during flowering in 2024) and differences among mulch types in regulating soil microclimate. These contextual factors are now more clearly discussed.

4. In Table 5, there are errors in marking the differences between the treatments; please pay attention to this.

Thank you for identifying this. We reviewed and corrected all letter-based mean comparisons in Table 5 to ensure consistency with ANOVA outputs. The revised version now accurately reflects statistical significance and grouping among treatments for both years. (Table 5; Lines 680–685)

5. Variants that are a safe alternative to artificial material were not selected; it is necessary to continue research with other treatments.

We appreciate this comment and agree. While the current study identified sorghum-based rolled residues as the most promising among tested systems, we have emphasized in the Conclusions that additional species and management combinations (e.g., legume–grass or perennial mixes) should be explored to identify robust, environmentally safe alternatives to plastic mulch. (Lines 772–776)

Overall comment: The study presents interesting data but needs further testing of natural mulching options.

We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive input and have incorporated these suggestions into the revised manuscript to clarify limitations, correct data presentation, and strengthen recommendations for future research.

General assessment: The study is relevant and timely, addressing the urgent issue of reducing polyethylene mulch use. The manuscript is well-written and methodologically sound but requires clarification of certain variable results.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the encouraging assessment and constructive suggestions. We carefully revised the Results and Discussion to clarify variability in soil indicators and to strengthen the interpretation of temporal and treatment-specific trends. We also expanded the context around microplastic pollution and the environmental motivation for this research.

1. Table 2 (Post-harvest 2023): Total N% and MAC values for Clover and Sorghum 1 are unusually high and variable. Please discuss whether these anomalies are biological or methodological.

We appreciate this observation. We examined the raw data and confirmed that variability in Clover and Sorghum 1 likely reflects a combination of biological and sampling effects. Both treatments produced dense root biomass and high microbial activity at post-harvest, which can cause spatial heterogeneity in mineral N and CO₂ flushes during incubation-based assays. We have clarified in the Discussion that these values reflect real variability associated with localized organic matter mineralization and N fixation, but we also note potential methodological amplification due to small-sample compositing. (Lines 736–742)

2. Temporal variability in Total N and OC (2023–2024): Please explain why Total N doubled from pre- to post-harvest and why OC decreased post-harvest in 2024.

The text was revised to explain that post-harvest increases in Total N in 2023 likely resulted from N mineralization of decomposing residues and root turnover, while the subsequent decline in OC in 2024 reflected accelerated decomposition and crop uptake under warm, dry post-harvest conditions. We added these mechanistic explanations in the Discussion. (Lines 734–742; 750–754)

3. Organic N and CO₂ dynamics (2023): Post-harvest increase in Organic N and decrease in CO₂ need mechanistic interpretation.

We added a paragraph explaining that post-harvest reductions in CO₂–C correspond to decreased microbial respiration as soil moisture declined and labile carbon was depleted, while Organic N accumulated from residue decomposition. This seasonal decoupling between C and N fluxes is now discussed explicitly. (Lines 739–743)

4. Figure 1: Include individual data points to show variability and evaluate potential outliers (e.g., Sorghum 1 ≈ 1 mm s⁻¹).

Figure 1 has been revised to display all individual data points overlaid on boxplots to improve transparency. The single Sorghum 1 value near 1 mm s⁻¹ was verified as a true low measurement (likely reflecting high residue cover) and retained; it is now clearly marked as an outlier point. (Figure 1; Lines 600–605)

5. Practical implications: Expand on the broader context of microplastic hazards and link the study to this environmental challenge.

We expanded the Introduction (Lines 65–72) and Discussion (Lines 780–788) to further emphasize the relevance of microplastic accumulation in soils and potential uptake in food crops. We now explicitly link our findings to the urgent need for alternatives that prevent plastic-derived soil contamination and highlight recent evidence of microplastic transfer into edible plant tissues.

Overall comment: The revisions should strengthen mechanistic explanation, improve data visualization, and contextualize the study’s contribution to mitigating microplastic pollution.

We have implemented all recommendations and believe the revised manuscript now provides a clearer interpretation of soil N–C dynamics, improved figure transparency, and stronger environmental framing.