I received 2 reviewer comments and 3 short comments. All acknowledge the relevance of your study, however, there are some serious issues that needs to be tackled/clarified. First of all, your definition of the layer crust is not clear and should be improved. As well as the English language. I am not sure which version your editing serviced reviewed, but the current version has some issues as indicated by a native reviewer.

Next to the 2 reviews and the short comments, I personally also had some suggestions for improvement:
- L20: what is meant by 'hydrological effectiveness"?
- L82-87: I found the objectives a bit vague. Can you please write them more explicit? (e.g. "determine the role of crust for soil properties (SUCH AS....?) and hydrological processes (LIKE..?)"; What dominant control factures..)
- L94-95: the unit of annual rainfall is mm/YEAR
- L164-168: what about the antecedent water content? This must have a big impact on the infiltration rate.
-L178-180: please convert units to similar once (so not using cm and mm and mL, but either do everything in mm or in m of in cm). Then you likely also don't need the conversion coefficient 10.

Hence, I advice the authors to take a serious look at the 2 reviewer comments and the 3 extra minor/technical comments, and improve the manuscript.

As can be seen both reviewers are satisfied with the revised version. Only reviewer #2 has some minor comments which should be included. I also agree with the suggestion of the title change. Although the authors explain now in the manuscript what they mean with "ecohydrological effectiveness", this is not a common term. So for the title a more descriptive term would help the reader to grasp the content of the paper right at the start.