The Authors' reply to the Reviewer's comments prove that the revised version of the paper could answer most of the complaints that were raised witht he first review. I think that the paper could strongly improve if the Authors take in account in an accurate way all the questions posed by the reviewers.
in particular, I stress that all the reviewers raised the problem of the resolution of the inverted geophysial data and this should be carefully addressed.
Also the discussion on the umethod use for decimating the soft conditioning data set should be considered with great care.
With regard to the remark by Reviewr #1 that the title is very general, I suggest to discuss whether the conclusions of this study could be generalised also for the use of other methods of stochastic simulation and other techniques of geophysical prospecting.
The Authors state that "no general empirical relationship between resistity measured by an airborne based TEM method and hydrological attributes has been studied". However, there is a great literature about laboratory, field and theoretical studies about the relationshp between electrical and electromagnetic parameters (no matter which prospecting method is used) and properties of the sediments and of the pore fluid. therefore, I would appreciate an improvement of the description of the method applied to transform electrical conductivity in lithological properties, by taking into account also physical aspects, such as variability of pore water conductivity and interactions between pore water and solid grains.

The Referees disagree with some of the results and comments expressed by the Authors, but they rate the paper as good and think that it deserves publication. I agree with them and ask the Authors to provide a minor revision, by taking into account the specific comments by Referee #1.
With respect to my personal comment on the relationship of electrical resistivity with hydraulic conductivity or with sediments and pore fluid properties, I draw the Authors' attention to some papers, whose DOI are listed below. See also the reference lists of those papers and the citing papers for a wide, even if incomplete, review.
10.1029/WR017i005p01401
10.1007/s10712-007-9022-y
10.1029/2000WR900165
10.1111/1365-2478.12102

The Authors'a answers to the Reviewers' comments on the revised version are sufficiently satisfactory.
However, the paper needs a further, accurate technical check. I found some mistakes about the references, as detailed below.
(1) Details of Refsgaard et al. (2014) should be provided.
(2) Papers cited and missing in the list of references
Christiansen and Christensen (2003)
Giudici et al. (2011)
Refsgaard and Henriksen (2004)
(3) Carle (1996) is not cited in the text
(4) In the text He et al. (2013a) and He et al. (2013b) are not distinguished.