I consider your manuscript entitled "The afterlife effects of leaf and root litter traits on soil N cycling" a valuable contribution to understanding the role of litter traits in soil nitrogen cycling and the fate of nitrogen in soil solution, particulate organic matter (POM), and mineral-associated organic matter (MAOM) fractions. Your work contributes relevant insights to the current theoretical framework in this domain. The study design is robust and comprehensive, incorporating a highly valuable and complete set of information.
However, I believe the presentation of results and discussion, and perhaps the references in the introduction, require substantial enhancement to solidify the paper's impact. Below, you will find my comments and suggestions concerning references to the theoretical framework, as well as ideas that may aid in hierarchizing the results and their discussion. I hope you find these suggestions constructive. Please note that some of my comments are merely suggestions or ideas that occurred to me while reading.

INTRODUCTION
In general, I found the introduction well-written, presenting the problem and theoretical framework concisely and clearly. However, I perceived that some relevant papers on the subject might be missing. I have provided a list of references below. I do not mean to suggest that you must cite them all, but rather to double-check if any pertinent background papers are missing.
An example is Figure 1, which I find very useful and constructive. The reference for Geisseler et al. 2010 (cited in line 41) is lacking in the reference list; please include it. I assumed this is the reference you are citing: Geisseler, D., Horwath, W. R., Joergensen, R. G., & Ludwig, B. (2010). Pathways of nitrogen utilization by soil microorganisms–a review. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 42(12), 2058-2067.
If my interpretation is correct, the figure referenced in this paper is relatively simple. Your figure includes the pathways of nitrogen through dissolved organic matter (DOM), POM, and MAOM. However, without detracting from the value of your figure, I believe it would be beneficial to revise and cite other papers that have previously advanced the connections between these components, such as Averrill & Waring 2018, Zhang et al. 2021, Cotrufo et al. 2021, Jilling et al. 2018 (the last one is already in your reference list).
Other comments:
Lines 72-85. Based on the details presented in this paragraph and on your results in table s3, maybe it would be convenient to mention the effect of magnesium (you mention this in methods but it is missing in the introduction). See for instance Vivanco and Austin 2019
Lines 93-99: I suggest giving more precision to the second part of this argument, to make it clearer. Maybe you can mention the “priming by Nitrogen” in litter and POM? See for instance Kuzyakov et al (2000), Mason-Jones et al (2018)
Lines 108-124: Although the focus of the paper is litter quality, you may also mention that N dynamics is also dependent on the influence of local soil biota and soil physical-chemical characteristics of the site. This could also help support your hypothesis 3. A release or retention pattern can be dependent on the context. (poner un par de referencias sobre esto)
Line 137-140: This sentence is a bit difficult to follow. Consider if you could split it to make it read easier. For instance, you could separate the early-stage decomposition aspects from the near-complete decomposition aspects.

METHODS
The methods section is clear and well-described. The experimental approach is interesting and relevant to the current research area. Some clarification is needed regarding the result analyses, as detailed below.
Lines 197-205: If I understood correctly, you had 4 replicates per species and litter type (leaves and roots) at each of the 3 sampling dates. Please clarify how these replicates were considered in the statistical analyses. Did you use the average per species, or did you include replicates in a nested structure to avoid pseudoreplication? Providing this detail in the methods and figure captions would aid interpretation.

RESULTS
The results presentation could be significantly enhanced by reducing redundancies or detailed results of secondary relevance. Additionally, increasing consistency in the figure formatting would be beneficial. Details not considered main observations (perhaps differing among species) could be moved to the supplementary material to reinforce the manuscript's core messages. Furthermore, to improve figure visibility, consider removing all lines except those for the main axes.
The presentation of the first results section, corresponding to Figures 2 and 3, was unconvincing for me. These figures appear partly redundant and inconsistent in format. A couple of suggestions may help:
Figure 3 conveys a more general message than Figure 2. Reversing their order could enhance clarity. Figure 2 seems to show mean values across time (please mention this in the caption), while Figure 3 appears to display model estimates and standard errors.
To maintain consistent formatting, you could show model estimates and interval coefficients by species and litter type (leaves/roots) as in Figure 3, optionally including replicate data points.
Alternatively, merge Figures 2 and 3 into a single, simpler message - one figure for carbon dynamics in litter, and another for nitrogen dynamics in litter, capsules, and soil. Non-essential information could move to supplementary material.
Figure 4 is complex and does not appear to be a main result (described in only one line, 401-402). Additionally, it is redundant with Figure 5. Consider removing it or moving it to supplementary material.
Figures 5a and 5b represent the same result in different ways. To simplify, consider retaining one and mentioning the other in text or supplementary information.
Figure 6: Revisit the methods section regarding how replicates were handled in analyses (it seems species' averages were used). You could split this figure into separate POM and MAOM results since you have a separate discussion section for these.
DISCUSSION
Overall, I think it could be beneficial to structure the writing of the discussion around the theoretical framework depicted in Figure 1. Organizing the findings and analysis within the context of this framework would provide a stronger theoretical meaning for your research. You could even build a similar Figure with your main results. It could also help if you refer to the figures in some parts of the discussion. Also, please check the references I have suggested below which may be useful to enrich your discussion. You could also mention aspects not covered in your study, like the interaction with soil biota composition, soil and ecosystem or climate characteristics.
Lines 479-486: When I read this sentence I imagined a comparison of the variability between species and between types of litter (leaves and roots)...perhaps the authors could re-consider the presentation of the results (Figs. 2, 3, 4) to highlight this message if it is the one they consider the main one.
Line 489-482: Just a thought in case it contributes. As you mention, in your results you observed mainly an N release pattern. To set the context limits of your study (as you make with N leaching), maybe you could mention that other contexts or litter traits can produce N retention? You have mention this in your introduction though
Lines 534-539: An idea that crossed my mind here..did you tested the N:P ratio?, this could be an interesting predictor of N and P release-retention patterns too…(Güsewell and Verhoeven 2006, Güsewell and Gessner 2009, Lingeri et al. 2023).
Lines 537-546: Consider if it is not better to build a new paragraph to highlight results of the fate in soil, POM and MAOM.

SUGGESTED REFERENCES
Averill, C., & Waring, B. (2018). Nitrogen limitation of decomposition and decay: how can it occur?. Global change biology, 24(4), 1417-1427.
Berenstecher, P., Conti, G., Faigón, A., & Piñeiro, G. (2023). Tracing service crops' net carbon and nitrogen rhizodeposition into soil organic matter fractions using dual isotopic brush-labeling. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 184, 109096.
Cotrufo, F., Lavallee, J. M., Zhang, Y., Hansen, P. M., Paustian, K. H., Schipanski, M., & Wallenstein, M. D. (2021). I n‐N‐O ut: A hierarchical framework to understand and predict soil carbon storage and nitrogen recycling. Global Change Biology, 27(19).
Cotrufo, M. F., & Lavallee, J. M. (2022). Soil organic matter formation, persistence, and functioning: A synthesis of current understanding to inform its conservation and regeneration. Advances in agronomy, 172, 1-66.
Güsewell, S., & Gessner, M. O. (2009). N: P ratios influence litter decomposition and colonization by fungi and bacteria in microcosms. Functional Ecology, 23(1), 211-219.
Güsewell, S., & Verhoeven, J. T. (2006). Litter N: P ratios indicate whether N or P limits the decomposability of graminoid leaf litter. Plant and Soil, 287, 131-143.
Güsewell, S., & Verhoeven, J. T. (2006). Litter N: P ratios indicate whether N or P limits the decomposability of graminoid leaf litter. Plant and Soil, 287, 131-143.
Jilling, A., Keiluweit, M., Contosta, A. R., Frey, S., Schimel, J., Schnecker, J., ... & Grandy, A. S. (2018). Minerals in the rhizosphere: overlooked mediators of soil nitrogen availability to plants and microbes. Biogeochemistry, 139, 103-122.
Kuzyakov, Y., Friedel, J. K., & Stahr, K. (2000). Review of mechanisms and quantification of priming effects. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 32(11-12), 1485-1498.
Lingeri, P. C., Piazza, M. V., & Caccia, F. D. (2023). Forest plantation diversification with Leguminosae tree species: Consequences on litter decomposition and nutrient recycling. Austral Ecology, 48(8), 1888-1910.
Luce, M. S., Whalen, J. K., Ziadi, N., & Zebarth, B. J. (2016). Net nitrogen mineralization enhanced with the addition of nitrogen-rich particulate organic matter. Geoderma, 262, 112-118.
Manzoni, S., Trofymow, J. A., Jackson, R. B., & Porporato, A. (2010). Stoichiometric controls on carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus dynamics in decomposing litter. Ecological monographs, 80(1), 89-106.
Mason-Jones, K., Schmücker, N., & Kuzyakov, Y. (2018). Contrasting effects of organic and mineral nitrogen challenge the N-Mining Hypothesis for soil organic matter priming. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 124, 38-46.
Surey, R., Kaiser, K., Schimpf, C. M., Mueller, C. W., Böttcher, J., & Mikutta, R. (2021). Contribution of particulate and mineral-associated organic matter to potential denitrification of agricultural soils. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9, 640534.
Villarino, S. H., Talab, E., Contisciani, L., Videla, C., Di Geronimo, P., Mastrángelo, M. E., ... & Piñeiro, G. (2023). A large nitrogen supply from the stable mineral-associated soil organic matter fraction. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 59(7), 833-841.
Vivanco, L., & Austin, A. T. (2019). The importance of macro-and micro-nutrients over climate for leaf litter decomposition and nutrient release in Patagonian temperate forests. Forest ecology and management, 441, 144-154.
Wooliver, R., Pellegrini, A. F., Waring, B., Houlton, B. Z., Averill, C., Schimel, J., ... & Schweitzer, J. A. (2019). Changing perspectives on terrestrial nitrogen cycling: the importance of weathering and evolved resource‐use traits for understanding ecosystem responses to global change. Functional ecology, 33(10), 1818-1829.
Zhang, Y., Lavallee, J. M., Robertson, A. D., Even, R., Ogle, S. M., Paustian, K., & Cotrufo, M. F. (2021). Simulating measurable ecosystem carbon and nitrogen dynamics with the mechanistically defined MEMS 2.0 model. Biogeosciences, 18(10), 3147-3171.