Dear Simon Etter and co-authors,

Thank you for posting your responses to the two referees’ reports. The reviews are quite favorable, but they also raised some important comments and suggestions that I urge you to consider as they might improve the quality of the manuscript. Based on my own reading, I find this to be an interesting paper that fits the scope of HESS well and will be of interest to the community.

In addition to the comments from the reviewers, I kindly ask you to also consider my two cents: (i) consider discussing how general are the presented results (e.g. considering different climates, terrain, hydrological model types and calibration techniques); (ii) Fig. 3 – consider reducing the symbol size of the dots and zooming closer to the observed hydrograph, I found it difficult to see the match between obs. and sim. data; and (iii) Fig. 6 – consider focusing on one or two cases (e.g. calibration: dry and validation: dry and calibration: wet and validation: wet) to make the figure larger and clearer, and presenting the other cases as supplementary information.

I invite you to upload a revised manuscript, incorporating the proposed changes and additions, and making any other modifications where you see fit (minor revision iteration). I look forward to receiving the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,
Nadav Peleg

Dear Simon Etter and co-authors,

I read the revised manuscript and your rebuttal letter and I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has now been accepted for publication in HESS.

Thank you for your contribution and best regards,
Nadav