Dear authors

your research received two clear reviews, however, with contrasting final decisions. I do think you point to an interesting process within soil erosion studies in (winter) snow covered areas. And I do appreciate the difficulty to quantify its contribution to the total soil erosion. Your method is novel, creative but also very sensitive to methodological errors and uncertainty. You present a diverse set of measurements and model results which seems to indicate the contribution of snow gliding in soil erosion. Also the uncertainty associated with this reserach is honestly mentioned and presented in your paper. Lastly, the methods can be repeated by other research groups and as such verified/falsified.

However, I agree with the first reviewer that the RUSLE-137-Cs approach needs more elaboration: the methodological assumptions strongly influence your outcome. Even to such degree that frankly said your conclusions could not appear that strongly or even disappear. Reviewer 1 challenges you to give some more 'support-proof' which I think are worthwhile to follow-up or discuss in the paper.

In that respect, I also suggest the authors to think of rephrasing the clear and quite strong conclusions such as: "Snow gliding is a key process" to less decisive wording in which the methodological uncertainty also shows (your title shows this with the wording: a first quantification attempt).

I look forward receiving a revised version of your paper.

Kind regards, Thom

Dear authors,

after a long and intense, but hopefully beneficial discussion period, I am glad to accept the paper for publication. The research is well done, the paper welll structured and I think you honestly and openly inform the readers about the uncertainty and limitations of your research. I am sure colleagues will try to replicate your work!

Thanks for your patience and the willingness to keep on reflecting and discussing your research.

Kind regards, Thom