This paper presents a study on the implementation of deep soil and dynamic root water uptake in the Noah-MP land surface model and the effects on modelled evaporation. The authors present a detailed explanation of the various model components and the modifications they applied. They comprehensively analyzed the effects of the different model setups on the internal model soil moisture and transpiration behavior. Also, the authors provide a comparison with a reference evaporation product. In general, it is an interesting and highly relevant study which is well written and clearly visualized. Nevertheless, I have a few comments that must be addressed before the manuscript can be published.

General comments:

Deep savanna roots:

The authors focus on deep roots for evergreen broadleaf forests, while the savanna roots are assumed to be shallow. In Singh et al. (2020) the presence of deep roots in savanna regions is highlighted. It is recommended to discuss how your analyses relate to this opposing result.

Singh, Chandrakant, et al. "Rootzone storage capacity reveals drought coping strategies along rainforest-savanna transitions." Environmental Research Letters 15.12 (2020): 124021.

Comparison to GLEAM:

The authors compare their model results with the GLEAM evaporation product. It should be noted that the ‘algorithms applied to satellite observations’ (L233) include assumptions on roots and root water uptake. Given this, referring to GLEAM as ‘observational estimates’ (L372) could be misleading.

The results presented in Sect. 3.2 and Fig. 9 could benefit from difference maps and/or a quantification in terms of for example correlation, because the visual comparison of the maps is not entirely intuitive. Moreover, a short sentence on how to interpret the Theil-Sen slope could help the reader in understanding Fig. 9; what does a + and – slope mean in terms of water dynamics?

Conclusion:

The conclusion provides more a summary of the findings than a strong conclusion. It is recommended that the authors rename the section, or reframe the section into a stronger ending. Furthermore, the numbers mentioned in L451 cannot be found in the previous sections, indicating that this does not fit in the conclusion section. It is also advised to stronger emphasize the relevance and the potential of this approach for the climate model community, and the accuracy of climate predictions.

Specific comments:

• L100: reference brackets
• 1c,d: the colorbars of the soil texture and land cover types are lacking information. It is suggested that the authors either show only the classes that are present in the regions including labels, or all classes with all labels.
• L242: ‘uptake above 1m’ is a bit confusing, could be solved by mentioning that we talk about uptake from soil layers shallower than 1m.
• L260: ‘water table depth is 2m’ would be more suitable
• 3g: the units of the axes are missing and it is not explicit that this is for the ROOT experiment or for another experiment.
• L338: reference brackets
• L427: remove the ‘is’

I consider this study interesting and scientifically valid. However, it needs improvements before it can be published (mainly in the discussion and conclusions sections). Below are the corrections needed for the publication of this article, and I would like to be able to review this article again after the requested corrections have been made.

-Lines 49, 50 and 51: According to the Markewitz et al. (2010) study (cited), 10% of water uptake by roots occurs at depths between 550 cm and 1150 cm. So, correct this information! Moreover, instead of using only one modeling study for this information, use these two observational studies: https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6211 and https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11143

-Lines 85, 86 and 87: This sentence about the studies in Table 2 is wrong and should be corrected or deleted.

-Line 150: Mention here the depth at which most of the water uptake by the roots of Amazonian trees occurs (based on the two observational studies recommended previously).

-Subsections 2.4 and 3.2: The GLEAM product consists of a set of algorithms to estimate the components of evapotranspiration, driven by satellite data. However, the maximum soil depth in this product is shallow (2.5 m). This should be mentioned as a limitation in these two subsections. Moreover, there are flux towers in the Brazilian state of Rondônia (with data freely available on the internet), and these should be considered.

-Results Section: In the case of the Southern Amazon, it is more correct to refer to the austral summer (DJF) as the purely rainy season, and the austral winter (JJA) as the purely (and relatively) dry season. Or, to the period of the South American Monsoon as the rainy season (NDJFM), and the period completely outside this monsoon, as the relatively dry season (MJJAS).

-DISCUSSION SECTION:

--Lines 378 and 379: Mention that this refers to an offline model!

--Line 380: Mention that it was evaluated in the southern Amazon.

--Lines 393 and 394: Are you sure that the Amazon rainforest is water-limited?????

--Overall: This subsection needs to be expanded and improved. One suggestion is that several studies that analyzed root depth and dynamics are mentioned in tables 1 and 2, and although some are simpler approaches than those in the present study, a comparative discussion of their results with the results of previous studies is important.

-CONCLUSIONS SECTION:

--The first three paragraphs are a large summary of what was done in this article, and should be eliminated or simplified to a small paragraph.

--The fourth and fifth paragraphs should be placed in the discussion section.

--The last three paragraphs are the only ones appropriate for the conclusions section, and should be explored further.