As rev. #1 pointed out, one important constraint of SWAT is that runoff generation is approached by the CN method. You mention a 2nd option, i.e. Green-Ampt infiltration. I acknowledge that thse approaches are inherent in SWAT and the authors cannot add a new approach, which might be more oriented towards the runoff generation processes in this region. As suggested by rev. #1, this problem needs to be discussed, both where SWAT and its results are presented and possibly in the overall discussion. You may discuss, e.g.: what are the main runoff generation processes in that region (Hortonian overland flow? and/or Dunne overland flow, i.e. sat. excess?)? Do you have an expert opinion on this? How do those processes vary in time, depending on the rainfall type/intensity and on the seasons? What about connectivity of the overland flow generated on the hillslopes or field with the channel system. Be aware that the issue of connectivity (or overland water retention before reaching the channel system) is NOT included in the (original) CN-approach neither Gren&Ampt. How does SWAT, or how o ou, approach this problem? Is this parametrized in the CN values, e.g. are your CN-values kind of “effective” values? I think it is well worth to discuss this.

Your section “Input data sources” is not detailed enough and needs further expansion. And please add / include a sub-section explaining more in detail variable-types, data sources, measurement methods, and their related uncertainty etc.. One needs a table with comprehensive data explanations, (e.g. which variables, spatial and temporal coverage, station locations, temporal resolutions, and data problem/gaps. What variables and in what resolutions in time and space where finally used in the statistical assessment and in the modelling?

PLEASE, improve the quality of the language significantly. One must not expect that the reviewers or the editor does such corrections. I feel sorry for the reviewers, if I see them writing a sentence like: “The paper should be carefully revised since in the current form it is very difficult to understand”. If I would have realized this in advanced, I might initially not have accepted the manuscript for review. Thus, please do your job and present an acceptable language and style. If the revised version will not be presented in a very well acceptable language and grammar quality, I will finally reject the manuscript. But, I am sure, you can improve this.

the manuscript has been amended comprehensively., which is appreciated. Still, it needs another full round of review. A final decision cannot be drawn before.

My friendly (but pressing) hint is that again this paper must be improved, in particular (but not solely) regarding language. You must consult an English native speaker. TU München must be able to afford the price for such correction.
If the reviewers will still find the language quality inadequate after your 2nd revision, the paper will have to be rejected.

Dear authors,

finally you worked well with your manuscript and it is my pleasure to tell you, that the manuscript has chances to be finally published in HESS. Rev. # 1 recommended further improvements; see his suggestions, which are given here for your information.
I advocate that you have a clear and sincere look on those recommendations and try to include them into your manuscript as far as possible. I also would like to see an accompanying document, where you document and explain the further changes and improvements.
kind regards,
Axel Bronstert

Dear colleagues,
you have now considered the reviewers' suggestions as far as you were able. Thank you.
After going again through your manuscript, I have a further point which needs clarification: in your table 8 and figure 7 the water balance is not closed. I.e. the sum of Qt (total yield) and evaporation is smaller than precipitation. How is this possible for periods of decades?
The change in soil moisture storage over longer time scales (e.g. a decade) is negligible. Deep aquifer drainage is also very small 8as you stated in a response to rev. # 2).
So please make this pint clear, or correct it. Also, please explain how your equation 7 agrees with the overall water balance.
Looking forward for your reply,
Axel Bronstert

ok, finally tis is a nice paper, wich adds new knowlede to the community.