Editor decision on the revised version of hess-2016-323

Dear Dr. Julian

Your revised manuscript has been again assessed by the two previous reviewers. As you can from their comments, they consider this version considerably improved and ask for minor revisions.

Reviewer 1 listed a number of detailed comments while Reviewer 2 was rather short with only few issues mentioned. However, he points out that the manuscript is still too long and that certain sections have be considerably shortened.

I also acknowledge that the manuscript was seriously revised and has substantially be improved. Nevertheless, I still see two major deficiencies. The first is the length of the manuscript, which is partially due to the fact that the results and discussion contain side stories that are not essential to the paper and distract the reader (see detailed comments below). Please note that what I call side stories here are not necessarily unimportant per se, but they are superfluous in the context of this paper. The second deficiency relates to the actual content and focus of the paper. In this revised version you put the emphasis on land use intensity – at least in the title and the abstract. However, the actual result section consists only of one out of six subsection that specifically addresses land use intensity (sub-section 4.3) and sub-section 4.6 on multivariate is only about correlation between land use and water quality. Land use intensity is not dealt with.

In my previous comments I asked explicitly for a clear focus on intensity: “Given the fact that Reviewer # 2 called for a clear focus of the manuscript and your suggested focus and effects of land use intensity, I strongly recommend that the result and discussion really concentrate on this aspect.” When evaluating the actual content of the results section of the revised version one has to state that the largest part does not deal with land use intensity. This discrepancy between title/abstract on the one hand and the actual content on the other hand, is annoying and evokes the impression that the revisions were only superficial. I can only accept this manuscript for publication if this aspects is seriously improved. I am convinced that a stronger focus will automatically lead to a shorter manuscript improving on the length issue.

Below I add some detailed comments that should be considered as well and that also may help to sharpen the storyline.

Detailed comments (Line numbers refer to the version with track changes of the Author's Response):

L. 15: Interdependencies and feedbacks between what? Please clarify.

L. 27: This statement seems to be contradicted by L. 31 – 34. Rewording might help to avoid the confusion for a reader.

L. 31 – 34: Where do I find this information in the result section?

L. 70: cause-effect relationships between what?

L. 75 – 77: One can easily argue against this statement because in small catchments the actual transfer may be dependent on very site-specific conditions affecting connectivity, which are difficult to incorporate into existing model approaches. I suggest to tone down the statement or to provide references that actually support your statement.

L. 264: How was this visual validation carried out? Please show results of the validation in the SI.

L. 282: These trends were flow corrected?

L. 300 – 301: Skip this reference – that a 1% change per year results in a > 10% change in a decade is simple maths.

L. 313 – 315: These details can be skipped for the sake of brevity (unless these catchments have a particular relevance which is not reported in the manuscript). For the general readers these abbreviations are just meaningless. This is of course different for people managing the specific areas. However, this paper is written for a general audience and not for local authorities.

L. 328 – 341: This very descriptive part has to be shortened considerably.

L. 576 –604: What is the novelty here? This very descriptive part has to be shortened considerably.

L. 854: Where can the results be seen?

L. 861: You provide a reference here – so what is actually novel here. Skip was simply represents a repetition of previous findings.

L. 881 – 882: Where are the data? Why is this not yet presented in the result section? Or did I miss it?

L. 891 – 893: This argument is not convincing. What shall be the actual mechanism that prevents a high concentration to increase further?

L. 897 – 907: This part distracts from the main story. Skip.

L. 909 – 918: Again, this explanation of outliers distracts from the main story. Skip.

L. 919 – 934: Shorten.

Please revise the manuscript by paying due attention to the comments by the two reviewers and myself.

Sincerely

Christian Stamm