Dear Authors

You have received the comments to your manuscript from the 2 reviewers.
Your manuscript needs in their judgement some major changes especially concerning inclusion of a longer study period as they both pointed to this as main drawback as you can not explain and analyse for an entire year with all seasons the responds of the catchment. As you have already in your response to the reviews argued that you can include such data for a one year study period you will need to update the manuscript and your analysis with this. Another major shortcome is that you need to include turbidity measurements to support your findings on sediment and P dynamics.

You will need to respond to all general and specific comments and suggestion given by the two reviewers during your major revision of the manuscript. From your response I can see that you have a possibility to improve the manuscript so I will look forward to see the revised manuscipt.

Dear Authors

I thank you for your revision of your manuscript and I find that you have really improved the manuscript considerably following the very good comments from the 2 reviewers. The inclusion of new data covering a full year and the inclusion of your high frequency monitoring data on turbidity and suspended sediment has improved your results and supported you in the analysis of your results as also proposed by the reviewers.

I find, however, that there is still a need for the following lists of major improvements in your manuscript before it can be accepted for publication (page and line references are to your annotated manusript):

Main comments:

1. You need to improve your Fig. 2 for the reader to be able to see the results. I propose to make 4 panels numbered also A, B, C and D for use as reference in the main body of text. A should be a new panel including flow and precipitation, and the other three panels should then show your N, P and turbidity data.
2. You should leave out all discussions from your Results sections - still you have some embedded e.g. p. 25, L. 12-18. Also avoid having references to other sections in your result section - e.g. p. 27, l. 18 and 19.
3. You should reduce the length of your Result sections. Delete the introduction under Results, p. 23, l. 11-16 (not needed). Reduce the section 3.2 with 50% - so avoid giving all details on the dynamics - the reader can see for them selves in the Fig. 2A, B, C and D. Please refer to each panel or panels using the letters. Leave out of the manuscript the section 3.6 - is really not needed for the presentation of your results and tests of your hypothesis - instead it is diluting your nice high frequency monitoring results and analysis of these data. You can include general things from these observations in the discussion with references instead - if needed for support.
4. I suggest that you include a Table with your analysis of the load of TN, TP and SS - as it is difficult only to follow the results in the text as you show also seasonal results between load calculated from high frequency observations and your normal sampling - give e.g. annual and monhtly results in the Table.
5. You will need to rewrite the conclusion as it is more like a discussion in its present form - use bullet points for main conclusions and an outlook in the end.
6. Please avoid using a sentence such as P. 33, L. 2 would serenely be unfavorable for the transfer model - you should instead acknolwdge that the model is weak in explaining the processes that might control N during this period such as biogeochemical processes in surface waters.

Minor comments:

1. P. 18, L. 15 - during evening or night hours.
2. P. 18, L. 26 - improve sentence as it is not clear if this is maximum allowed concentrations in discharge waters.
3. P. 19, L. 3 - please insert name/producer of filter used.
4. P. 23, L. 28 - precipitation amounted to 455 mm,
5. P. 28, Please use comma to separate 1000s through the manuscript and please remember to give units - eg. line 16 - 18,200 kg for TP and 372,500 kg for NO3-N.

Dear Authors

You have done a nice revision and followed all suggestions so I am happy to suggest your paper for publication.