Dear Wei Li and co-author,

Thank you for posting your responses to the three referees’ reports. The reviewers raised some important comments and suggestions - especially considering the model setup and validation, the reforestation scenarios and the interpretation of the results. From reading your responses, I can see that you seriously considered their critiques, which I have confidence that will improve the quality of the manuscript. In addition to the comments made by the reviewers, I would like to suggest another analysis that I believe will contribute to the scientific quality of the paper: many recent studies tie between rainfall intensification, air temperature and humidity increase (i.e. the Clausius–Clapeyron relation); in your work, I see the potential of exploring how this relation is changing following the change in vegetation cover. Please consider this point, as it might add another interesting scientific perspective to your work. Based on my reading of the original manuscript and your replies to the referees, I find this to be a potentially interesting paper that might fit the scope of HESS and could be of interest to the hydrological community. Therefore, I invite you to upload a revised manuscript, incorporating the proposed changes and additions, and making any other modifications where you see fit. In your response, please provide a point-to-point answer to the comments made by the reviews, and a track-changed version of the manuscript. I look forward to receiving the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,
Nadav Peleg

Dear Wei Li and co-authors,

I have now received the reports of the three referees. One referee suggested accepting the paper, another suggested minor revisions and another suggested major revisions. Reading their comments and suggestions and the text once again, I believe the manuscript needs another round of major revisions before it can be considered for publication in HESS.

Please consider carefully the following points in your revised manuscript and replies to the reviewers:
1. Justify the use of the 99.95th percentile of rainfall in your analysis.
2. Better explain the differences between the 20% forest cover scenario and the 50% forest cover scenario (especially address the comment made by the third reviewer - why would the 20% scenario produce larger changes than the 50% scenario?).
3. Why temperature was used for the comparison? Also, comment on what seems to be a systematic bias in the temperature.
4. What land cover changes happened between 1990 and 2010?
5. Explain the contradiction in LHF values between Fig. 13 and the text.

I summarized the above points based on the reports of the referees. Please, in your replies, address each of the points raised in their reports (not only the points summarized above). Also, consider having a native English speaker proofreading the manuscript. I am looking forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,
Nadav Peleg

Dear Authors,

I am happy to accept your manuscript for publication in HESS. Congrats and thank you for contributing to the journal.

Sincerely,
Nadav Peleg