Thank you for your positive feedback on our manuscript. Based on your comments, we will revise our manuscript based on your comments. Below are our detailed responses to your comments.

1. In the abstract, more quantitative results are needed.

Response: Thank you for your constructive comment. More quantitative results will be added to the abstract. 

2. Lines 107-115: This paragraph is important to summarize why you conduct this study and what objectives your study have. This paragraph need be rephrased. The data input information need be moved to the Methodology section.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We agree with you, and the mentioned paragraph will be rephrased accordingly. Also, the section on data input information will be moved to the methodology section.

3. Per the requirement of HESS, all figures need be inserted into the text. I suggest re-organizing this manuscript by making this methodology as a generic method. For example, a better tile should be "A D-vine copula-based quantile regression for merging satellite precipitation products over rugged topography: A case study at the upper Tekeze Atbara Basin of the Nile Basin". In addition, you need describe the methodology as a generic method first and then describe the case study area.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We will insert all the figures and tables into the text through the manuscript. Also, we agree with your suggestion for making the methodology a generic method.

4. Discussion is kind of missing. The authors need provide some descriptions on the advantages, potential limitations, further studies on this topic in this discussion.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. We will  add a discussion section including previous studies' findings and our current study's advantages. Also, we will highlight the limitations of the present study and the future direction of research.

5. Comment: Discussion can be combined with the conclusion section. The conclusions need be more concised and just describe the major findings.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. We improved the conclusion section, and the limitation and future direction moved from the conclusion to the discussion section.

Thank you for the positive evaluation and encouraging comments on our manuscript. Based on your comments, we will further revise our manuscript. Below are your detailed responses to your comments.

1. the impacts of different scales. The rain gauge observes rainfall at a local or point scale, while the satellite products are in km or tens of km scale. When the authors try to compare the merged products against rain gauge observation, the mismatch of scale should be discussed in more detail and carefully. 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The mismatching between rain gauges (points) and satellite-based precipitation products (pixels) will be discussed in the first part of the discussion section.

1. The validation. The authors take a ten-fold way to train and validate their results. However, only ten stations are available. it is suggested the authors use the other 65 stations for validation.

Response: Thank you for your feedback and suggestion to use additional stations for validation. Unfortunately, the other 65 stations are unavailable for validation in our study. Due to data limitations, we are strained to use the available ten stations for training and validation.

1. The reliability of downscaled soil moisture data. the authors downscale soil moisture to 0.01 degree, but did not show the validation results. Soil moisture is a highly spatial heterogeneous variable. The authors should check and validate the downscaled soil moisture data.

Response: Thank you for your comment regarding validating our soil moisture data, both the original and downscaled satellite data. Unfortunately, we do not have access to observed soil moisture data for validation purposes, which is a limitation of our study. The soil moisture data was used as an explanatory variable to improve the estimation of precipitation based on the suggestion of an investigation by Kumar et al. (2019).

1. L34, what are the downscaled SPPs, from where? The abstract should be self-explained. 

Response: Thank you for your comment. "SPPs" refers to Satellite-based Precipitation Products mentioned in L26. These products are obtained from Tropical Applications of Meteorology using SATellite (TAMSAT v3.1), the Climate Prediction Center MORPHing Product Climate Data Record (CMORPH-CDR), Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Integrated Multi-satellite Retrievals for GPM (IMERG v06) and Precipitation Estimation from Remotely Sensed Information using Artificial Neural Network (PERSIANN-CDR). We will add the mentioned above products to the abstract. 

1. L36, what is UTAB?

Response: Thank you for your comment. We apologize for the omission of an explanation for "UTAB" at L36. UTAB stands for "Upper Tekeze-Atbara Basin," which is a study area we selected in this study. 

1. In the abstract part, it is better to show the results in a more quantitative way, like adding some values of the metrics used in this study. 

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We agree with your recommendation to enhance the abstract's clarity and informativeness by incorporating quantitative data. Some quantitative results will be added to the abstract. 

1. L109, "Here in this present study", please be concise.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We appreciate your suggestion for conciseness in our manuscript. The above sentence will be modified to be more concise. 

1. L110, SPP has been defined before, do not need to do it again.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We will remove any other repeated definitions of SPPs accordingly. 

1. L148, what is the meaning of "another NOAA-CPC"?

Response: Thank you for your comment. "Another NOAA-CPC" refers to a category of products provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Prediction Center (NOAA-CPC). NOAA-CPC offers various types of satellite-based precipitation products, including but not limited to the African Rainfall Climatology (ARC2) and the African Rainfall Estimation Algorithm (RFE). 

1. L151, what is the "PM"?

Response: Thank you for your comment. We apologize for the oversight in our manuscript. In L151, "PM" was written mistakenly instead of "passive microwave (PMW)." We appreciate your keen eye in identifying this error, and the corrections will be made in the manuscript's revised version.