The paper was significantly improved and I believe that the current version deserves to be published on Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. However, three general comments and some specific comments should be addressed to make the paper more clear and relevant (of course in my opinion).
I listed here the general comments:
1) A quantitative comparison between in situ measurements and DISPATCH soil moisture is easy to be performed and would add quantitative results to the paper. For instance, the correlation between the average of in situ observations and DISPATCH in the two investigated periods will quantify the difference in the performance of DISPATCH product.
2) The introduction should contain the recent studies that attempted in using satellite soil moisture for providing irrigation information. For instance, see the papers by Lawston et al. (2017, doi: 10.1002/2017GL075733), Brocca et al. (2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jag.2018.08.023), Zaussinger et al. (2018, doi: 10.5194/hess-2018-388) and references therein.
3) The obtained results might be not only related to the spatial resolution of LST and NDVI, but also simply to the low sensitivity of these two variables to irrigation application. They provide information at the surface and of vegetation conditions, which might be not sensitive to irrigation. I am not aware of studies that have shown the LST or NDVI variation in time are sensitive to irrigation. I suggest adding this option should be added in the discussion of the results.
I listed in the specific comments a number of corrections and changes that are needed to make the text more readable.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS (P: page, L: line or lines)
P1, L16: remove the bracket before “Normalized”
P1, L29: change “draught” with “drought”
P2, L1: change “exchange” with “exchanges”
P2, L14: remove “in a commercial field site”
P2, L17: change “true value” with “reference value”
P2, L23: change “from the fact that field data is typically scarce and provides” with “from the typical low number of in situ sensors that provide”
P3, L3: remove comma after “Sensing”. Why Remote Sensing in capital?
P3, L4: add “(or less)” after “5 cm”
P3, L3-14: The other satellite soil moisture products currently available should be mentioned, i.e., SMAP, ASCAT, AMSR2 and ESA CCI SM.
P3, L17: change “This data can be freely…web sites” with “data are freely available”
P3, L20: add a reference to the downscaling studies at the end of the sentence.
P3, L21: please check, I do not think the spatial resolution in the study by Chauhan is 25 km.
P3, L23-24: the sentence “The change in…resolution” should be revised as it is not clear.
P4, L12: The recent study by Bauer-Marschallinger et al. (2018, doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2018.2858004) demonstrated the feasibility to obtain a soil moisture product operationally from Sentinel-1. I suggest adding this reference.
P4, L16: change “even if” with “only if”
P5, L12: change “sprinkle” with “sprinkler”
P5, L12: please specify the source of the soil texture information. Does it refer to one point, a spatial average of multiple measurements?
P5, L23: remove the point after “Figure 1”
P6, L10: change “resolution” with “accuracy” and specify how this number is obtained.
P8, L9: what is the meaning of “content”? Also later in the text (P10, L9). Please revise.
P8, L10: add a reference here. Always, when you cite results of previous studies, a reference should be added.
P8, L17: what is the meaning of “transpired”? Please revise.
P9, L13: remove “general”, also in the conclusions (P12, L1).
P9, L15: change “can slightly underestimate” with “slightly underestimates” (remove can).
P9, L22: remove “significant”.
P12, L8: change “can” with “might”.
On this basis, I found the topic of the paper very relevant, and I suggest a minor revision before the paper can be published on Hydrology and Earth System Sciences.