Dear authors,
following up on the reviews received and your subsequent suggestions for improvement, I would like to invite you to submit a revised version of your manuscript. Please give particular attention to the comments made on the need for a clear description of the objectives (with a description of the status quo & pending questions) and how these are aligned with the proposed approach/conceptual framework. This will make it easier for the readers to also clearly recognize the advances made by your study.
I am looking forward to receive a revised version of your contribution.
Best regards,
Laurent Pfister

Dear authors,

Thank you for having submitted a revised version of your manuscript. The structure of the contribution has been substantially improved – notably through a completely reshaped introduction. The latter now proposes a detailed literature review and related knowledge gaps on the current and future trajectory of land cover change in Northwestern Canada, alongside related hydrologic and thermal mechanistics and feedback mechanisms. The objectives of your contribution are now clearly aligned with the identified knowledge gaps on the one hand and the proposed methodology, analyses, conclusions and conceptual framework on the other hand.

Note that the adjusted title, abstract and key points are well aligned with the content of the revised manuscript.

Prior to entering the final processing stages of your contribution, I invite you to consider a few minor points:

- In section 4.2.1 (Biophysical Characteristics), line 1272, the sentence ‘The concept of land cover transition depicted in Figure 6 also stands in contrast to those that couple forest with permafrost thaw and re-development in terms of the time frame.’ is rather difficult to understand and would certainly benefit from a rephrasing.
- In your response to the referees’ comments, you state in response to the referee’s comments ‘337–340 Whether or not your results can be extrapolated is a topic for the discussion section, not for the methods.’ that ‘The purpose of the text in lines 337-340 of the original manuscript is to explain the approach that we have taken of using ground-based observation at an intensively studied site (i.e. Scotty Creek) to interpret remotely-sensed ground surface changes over a latitudinal transect. The new text reads as follows: “Therefore, ongoing shifts along the proposed trajectory of change in landcover and the associated hydrometeorological changes in Scotty Creek can be extrapolated to other similar peat plateau-collapse scar wetland sites, both throughout the Taiga Plains and the global subarctic.” Unless I am mistaken, the proposed new text is not included in the revised version of your manuscript. Could you please verify this important point? I would also propose in the revised version to not use the term ‘extrapolate’, but rather ‘transpose’.
- The newly proposed paragraph (according to what you state in the response to the referee comments) “The long-term monitoring in the Scotty Creek basin presents a unique opportunity to study warming-induced landcover changes to plateau-wetland complexes in the Taiga Plains given the record of field and modelling studies at this site over the course of nearly three decades. This record has coincided with a period of drastic climate warming. Longterm field research in the Scotty Creek basin, including continuous hydrometeorological observations in concert with annual and seasonal monitoring, facilitate the examination of the impacts of climate change on peat plateau-collapse scar wetland complexes. This landform type is found extensively both throughout northwestern Canada and across the global subarctic (Olefeldt et al. 2016).” does not exactly correspond to what is written in the revised version of the manuscript (on page 10). Can you please check this and correct if appropriate.
- Referee comment to Figure 5: In your reply, you state that ‘We thank the reviewer for advising we check the low values of longwave radiation. The issue has been identified and has been remedied.’ Could you possibly give a few additional details on how the issue has been remedied?

Thank you in advance for addressing the minor points listed here above. I am looking forward to receiving the updated version of your manuscript.

Best regards,

Laurent Pfister

Dear authors,
after having received the latest version of your revised manuscript, I have the pleasure to accept your contribution for publication in HESS. All pending questions/issues have indeed been satisfactorily answered/addressed.
Your paper will now go through the final processing stages.
Thank you very much for having chosen HESS for publishing your research.
Best regards,
Laurent Pfister