Dear authors,

thank you very much for your detailed and thoughtful replies to the reviewer comments. As you have seen, both reviewers are very positive about your manuscript. The main point highlighted is that in places your manuscript is not easy to follow without getting confused. I acknowledge the abundance of different data and their immense information content. For the reader to fully appreciate that I would strongly encourage you to try to be more detailed and specific in your descriptions and interpretations so as to reduce the potential for confusion. In that sense, the points raised by reviewer #2 may be particularly helpful as they point you towards parts of the paper where clarifications are needed.

Within this relatively minor revisions I am therefore looking forward to receive a revised version of your manuscript.

best regards,

Markus Hrachowitz

Dear authors,

thank you for addressing the reviewer comments in a very detailed and thoughtful way. The manuscript is very interesting to read and I am sure it will raise quite some interest. Before I can acept it for publication thoguh, I would like to ask you for a few very minor corrections in Figure 9:
(1) I do understand your intention, but I am not sure if repeating the same hydrograph (plus ec and isotopic composition) six times is the best option here. it does not only look a bit awkward, it may also cause confusion: it took me a while to figure out that there is *no* difference between them. Please give it another thoguht - maybe you can find a better solution.

(2) I have tried several times now, but the labels of the x-axes in that figure do not make sense - some months are missing, which I guess is summarized by "N-M", but that is not clear: do you average the values there? please clarify!

(3) Please provide y-axes scales and labels in that figure! These can of course be normalized between 0 and 1 to avoid the need for 3 different labels.

Looking forward to receiving a corrected version!

Best regards,

Markus Hrachowitz