It appears to me that the authors are in position to incorporate the suggested comments from reviewers, where appropriate. Please revise the manuscript based on the helpful reviewer suggestions.

The authors have done a good job addressing reviewer concerns. The manuscript is well written and the major themes clear. The distribution of fractions and their drivers and relations (or lack thereof) to plant P all provide new and useful information. I think this makes a unique contribution to the P literature and will be well received and widely read by the SOIL audience.
p.3. l.16. Is ‘and P pools of different availability’ needed? One alternative option would be to change to ‘Hedley P fractions, representing different P pools believed to have different bioavailability’.
p.10. l.2. Double period typo.

Dear Authors,

First of all, I would like to thank you for considering SOIL as a venue to publish your work. Second, I do appreciate how you improved your manuscript based on the comments received by the reviewers and the topical editor. The topical editor has just two more things to be addressed and then this manuscript is ready for publication in SOIL.
best regards,
jo