I have now considered reviews of both paper hess-2014-363 and hess-2014-314. I would like to thank the authors for their detailed responses to these reviews, which helped clarify several misunderstandings. Note that this recommendation is repeated in the response to the other paper.

While it is clear that a considerable amount of modeling and analysis has been conducted here, it is not clear that either paper is ready to stand on its own as a publishable contribution at this time. I am inclined to agree with the critique of Reviewer 2 of hess-2014-363, that it (and I would extend this to hess-2014-314) reads like a report of a modeling exercise, and lacks the required degree of insight and analytical depth. While the authors have committed to expanding the discussion in each paper, I recommend that the authors consider combining the two papers into a single manuscript with a natural progression from sensitivity analysis to climate-change projection, focusing on the various responses of vegetation and the capacity (or lack thereof) of the model to represent these under different assumptions.

The various reviews provide ample suggestions for improving the analysis, and I would particularly suggest paying close attention to the insightful comments of Reviewer 2 of hess-2014-363. The authors should certainly clarify their suggestion regarding the effect of reduced precipitation and increased temperature on soil moisture – is the soil ‘wetter’ than is was pre-climate change (as it appears Referee #2 may have interpreted the statement), or is it wetter than it would have been predicted if the effect of reduced LAI were not accounted for?

With regard to the method of sensitivity analysis employed in hess-2014-314, I do not believe that the approach is ‘flawed’ so long as it is placed in context as a sensitivity analysis, and (as Referee #2 of that paper suggested) appropriate comparisons to the observed streamflow are made, in addition to comparisons between the results of the two methods. I am glad to see that in their response the reviewers have committed to doing so.

I have considered the reviews of this paper (hess-2014-363) and the similar paper submitted at the same time by the same authors (hess-2014-314). Both papers have now been through two rounds of reviews. I think it is fair to say the reviews of both papers have been mixed.

The reviews suggest that this paper is of greater significance than the other, and has improved in terms of scientific and presentation quality, but has still received mixed reviews, with one reviewer insisting on 'reject' in both rounds. While I agree with that reviewer’s assessment of the weakness of the paper, I don't think they alone warrant rejection of the paper. CO2 fertilization and climate-induced shifts in the distribution of plant functional types are important ecohydrologic issues still at the forefront of research, and will make their way into integrated studies like this one eventually, but I don’t feel that this is a sufficient basis to reject the manuscript at this time. Rather this weakness should be acknowledged and discussed in the manuscript. The reviewer’s insightful comments provide plenty of fodder for doing so.