Thank you for the detailed responses to the reviewers' comments. I will ask them for their opinion on the revised manuscript once it has been uploaded.

Dear Authors,
The two reviewers both think that you have sufficiently responded to the previous review comments and have used these comments to significantly improve the manuscript. They have few additional comments. I agree with them and included some additional suggestions to further improve the manuscript in the attached document. I hope that you find these suggestions and the comments from reviewer 2 useful and will incorporate them as much as possible.
With best regards,
Ilja van Meerveld

Dear Authors,
Thank you for responding to the reviewer comments and incorporating them into the manuscript. I think that most readers will interpret canopy storage capacity as the amount of water that can be stored in the canopy (cf the parameter used in interception models; e.g. the gash model, units of mm) and not as the total interception loss. I therefore ask you to rewrite this part of the revised text to avoid confusing the readers. A few additional comments and suggestions to further improve clarity (particularly indicating whether the described differences between rainfall and throughfall were larger than the 6% measurement uncertainty or not) are given in the attached document.
Best regards,
Ilja van Meerveld