The manuscript has received two reviews, with both reviewers recommending Major Revision. I now request that the authors work to revise the discussion paper based on their proposed changes.

There are two main issues pointed out by the reviewers - the ability to account for soil moisture and the use of simulated data for validation. I would also add that it appears that most of the comments from the reviewers are addressed in the response documents but not necessarily the comments regarding soil moisture and resulting precipitation biases that are discussed in the General Comments from Reviewer #2. These comments do not appear to have been responded to at all.

Therefore, I ask the authors to address these comments in their formal responses and revision and note how they have specifically resolved these points. The manuscript will be sent for re-review once revised.

The revised manuscript has now been re-reviewed. Reviewer #1 has now found that the manuscript has been sufficiently revised based on their comments; however, Reviewer #2 found one important comment that still needs to be addressed. I now request that the authors consider this comment and revise accordingly, after which a final decision will be made.

After a decision of major revision and re-review, the reviewers decided that their previous comments had been addressed with the exception of one additional comment raised by Reviewer #2 regarding the connection between LAI and the terrestrial water fluxes and storages variables. The authors have responded by adding discussion about this point to the manuscript and the potential effects this connection may have on the interpretation of their results. Given this latest revision, I believe the manuscript can now be accepted for publication in HESS.