The reviewers are generally favourable to the paper and have made some useful comments that will improve the manuscript. The core matter, and I agree, is a lack of more detailed analyses as to the components of the fluxes and the different assumptions that are made in that quantification to gain, for example IGF values. I fully appreciate what the authors have written in their response in terms of clarifying the choices made in additional text (i.e. both reviewers commented on the need for more transparency and critical analyses on the use of a topographic catchment basin). Whilst I appreciate the authors current responses and suggested changes I don't think yet they fully tackle the issues of being more transparent on how the flow components come together per reach, what that looks like more clearly for each reach and if those numbers seem physically plausible given the assumptions that need to be made. We have to remember here the core analyses are conducted on event behaviour and there are some challenging questions in karstic landscapes how lags, and pre-event events may indeed impact on the expected current storm event contributions, as well as seasonal variations that might well be likely for different 'general' aquifer states. I encourage therefore the authors to try to tease out these issues a little more to make the results and how they come together more transparent, and a little more of a critical analyses and assumptions required. Plus also other ways to help the reader better interpret the data provided. i.e. if the IGF is in mm, then what fraction of the catchment would be increased or lost to effectively result in that mm gain for the hydrogeologically active component - I think this would be really interesting to look at to see if the differences are plausible under a certain set of assumptions. Or indeed what fraction of the storm flow is IGF? Even examples of the flow components for some reaches, perhaps even reported in Supplementary pages? So I'd like to see a bit more in the changes to the paper than what has been specified by the authors in their response to this point and I believe it will make it a better paper...., I shall then conduct an editorial review of the changes, best wishes, Jim

The reviewers are generally favourable to the paper and have made some useful comments that will improve the manuscript, however they each note the need for major corrections. The core matter, and I agree, is a lack of more detailed analyses as to the components of the fluxes and the different assumptions that are made in that quantification to gain, for example IGF values. I fully appreciate what the authors have written in their response in terms of clarifying the choices made in additional text (i.e. both reviewers commented on the need for more transparency and critical analyses on the use of a topographic catchment basin). Whilst I appreciate the authors current responses and suggested changes I don't think yet they fully tackle the issues of being more transparent on how the flow components come together per reach. What that looks like more clearly in the results for each reach and if those numbers seem physically plausible given the assumptions that need to be made. We have to remember here the core analyses are conducted on event behaviour and there are some challenging questions in karstic landscapes how lags, and pre-event events may indeed impact on the expected current storm event contributions, as well as seasonal variations that might well be likely for different 'general' aquifer states. I encourage and expect therefore the authors to try to tease out these issues more (i.e. the need for improve critical analyses and new results) to make the results and how they come together are more transparent, and a little more of a critical analyses and assumptions required to be identified. Plus also other ways to help the reader better interpret the data provided. i.e. if the IGF is in mm, then what fraction of the catchment would be increased or lost to effectively result in that mm gain for the hydrogeologically active component (for example) - I think this would be really interesting to look at to see if the differences are plausible under a certain set of assumptions. Or indeed what fraction of the storm flow is IGF? Even examples of the flow components for some reaches, perhaps even reported in Supplementary pages? So I'd like to see a bit more in the changes to the paper than what has been specified by the authors in their response to this point and I believe it will make it a better paper...., I shall then conduct an editorial review of the changes, but if need be I will send this back for further review if I don't think the spirit of what the reviewers have noted is being further developed by the authors, best wishes, Jim

The authors have provided detailed and comprehensive responses and the additions and changes to the analyses proposed are very welcome, particularly the extra figures of 8 and 11. Given these changes I have decided in this case after careful deliberation to revert the revised manuscript in full to the reviewers and clarify this level of changes means the clarity of the paper and its assumptions are now well received and fit for final publication.

The authors have provided detailed and comprehensive responses and the additions and changes to the analyses proposed are very welcome, particularly the extra figures of 8 and 11. Given these changes I have decided in this case after careful deliberation to revert the revised manuscript in full to the reviewers and clarify this level of changes means the clarity of the paper and its assumptions are now well received and fit for final publication.

The revised manuscript has received very favourable reviews and the authors time and effort on improving their paper is very much appreciated. I would just ask the authors to respond and reflect on Reviewer 1's comments and minor changes before publication that I shall quickly review...., Jim

Dear Author, thanks for your final clarifications and co-operation. I am happy that this paper now moves to publication. Thanks so much for publishing your paper in HESS, this is a great contribution for our journal, best wishes, Jim