Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful and comprehensive feedback on our manuscript. We are pleased that you found our study valuable and well-written, and appreciate your recognition of the importance and uniqueness of the datasets we presented. We also acknowledge the need to improve the structure and clarity of our manuscript, particularly regarding the presentation of results and discussion. Below, we address your general and specific comments in detail.

General Comments

1. Separation of Results and Discussion: We understand your concern about the mixing of results and explanations and interpretations. While we appreciate the suggestion to separate results and discussion (and would in general also choose this structure), we believe that integrating them allows for a more cohesive narrative, where results can be immediately interpreted and contextualized. Because very different results are presented in this manuscript, we consider this beneficial for this case. For example, we think that it is necessary to discuss the hydrochemical characteristics of the water sources and describe how these results are similar to those of previous studies in the area, before we continue to use these data for other (e.g., mixing) analyses. To address your concern, we will reorganize the current structure of the paper to more clearly distinguish the presentation of data from their interpretation within each section. This will help maintain a clear focus on the research questions without separating the sections entirely.
2. Focus on Research Questions: We will revise the manuscript to ensure that the discussion consistently revisits and directly answers the research questions posed at the end of the introduction. We will highlight the answers to these questions more clearly to ensure they are easily identifiable to the reader.
3. Comparison Between Catchments: We will elaborate more on our second research question concerning the comparison between the two topographically different catchments. Specifically, we will discuss how topography influences the stream network and the state of connectedness in more detail. Moreover, a clearer presentation of the conceptual model of the flowing drainage network and solute export (see point 5 below) will enable us to better illustrate the similarities and differences between these catchments, thereby addressing our research questions more effectively.
4. Link to Intermittent Streams: We will strengthen the link of our research findings to intermittent streams in the interpretation sections. This will highlight the significance of our study in the context of intermittent stream networks and their unique characteristics.
5. Conceptual Model: We will present the conceptual model of the flowing drainage network and solute export as a summary at the end of the discussion. This will provide a clear and concise synthesis of the new understanding gained from our study before the conclusions section. We will try to use this section to highlight the answers to the research questions again as well.

Specific Comments

1. L 147: We will correct this to "METER Group."
2. L 176: We will change “tricking” to “trickling.”
3. L 228: We will start a new sentence after “E2.”
4. Section 2.5.2: When we stated that we create maps of flowing drainage networks, we aimed to convey that we record the flowing or non-flowing state of each reach at every time step and maintain spatial information about their locations and connections (derived from mapping surveys and stored in our database). Using these data, we visually assessed the connectivity of the stream network on the surface. Specifically, we generated time-lapse maps showing flowing and non-flowing reaches in different colors.
   
   An alternative approach would be to calculate an index expressing network connectivity (e.g., length of connected network), but we chose the first method to identify which parts of the catchment re-wet and dry up first. This method was also faster to program based on our data storage format.
   
   This section focuses solely on surface connectivity. We discuss the potential use of our hydrochemical data to understand subsurface connectivity in other sections. We will clarify these points in the relevant section.
5. Caption Fig. 4: We will revise the caption of Figure 4 to accurately describe the panels. We appreciate you pointing out this mix-up and will ensure that the correct descriptions are provided in the revisions.
6. L 473: We will remove the redundant “from areas.”
7. L 689: We will correct the reference to Fig. 6 instead of Fig. 8.

We are confident that these revisions will significantly improve the manuscript, making our findings clearer and more accessible to readers. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

Kind regards,

Izabela Bujak-Ozga

on behalf of all co-authors

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough and insightful review of our manuscript. We were pleased to hear that you enjoyed the introduction and found our research questions both important and well-stated. Your recognition of the uniqueness of our dataset in the context of intermittent stream chemistry is highly appreciated as well. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions to improve our manuscript. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your points.

Major Comment:

1. Reorganization of Results/Discussion:
   
   We agree that reorganizing sections 3.2 and 3.3 to better highlight the answers to our research questions will enhance the manuscript. While we do not agree that it is useful to entirely rewrite these sections to group solutes by type, we will reorganize the content wherever possible to improve clarity and flow and, as suggested, add references to the conceptual model. Moreover, as also described in our response to the other reviewer, we will revise the Results and discussion section to ensure that the discussion consistently revisits and directly answers the research questions posed at the end of the introduction. These changes should increase clarity and help readers more easily follow the answers to the research questions.
2. Conceptual Figure Clarification:
   
   As also requested by the other reviewer, we will present the conceptual model of the flowing drainage network and solute export as a summary at the end of the discussion. This will provide a clear and concise synthesis of the new understanding gained from our study before the conclusions section. Moreover, we will revise the conceptual figure to enhance clarity and add a detailed legend explaining the colors, flowpaths, and line types. Specific changes include:

• Clarifying that the letters in the block diagrams correspond to specific processes and do not directly relate to the colors. Correcting a typo on the panel a of the figure (letter A should be E).
• Providing detailed explanations for the dashed versus solid lines and the significance of each color in the figure.
• Adding more text to tie the figure back to our research questions and including a summary section discussing the conceptual figure in the context of our findings.

Minor Comments:

1. Citation for Statement (lines 60-61): We will add the appropriate citation to support the statement in lines 60-61, e.g., Brinkerhoff et al. (Science, 2024), Alexander et al. (JAWRA, 2007). We will also simplify the sentence: “The dynamic variations in flow conditions along drainage networks can influence the quantity and quality of streamwater in downstream reaches.”
2. Correction (line 66): We will correct the reference to “Warix et al. (2023) used CFC-12 & 3H”.
3. Specification of Solute Totals (line 209): We will clarify that we are reporting solute totals in this section.
4. Addition of Mineral Saturation Indices (lines 309-323): We agree that calculating the saturation index of calcite for groundwater samples would strengthen our hypothesis. Unfortunately, we cannot calculate this index because we did not measure the pH of the groundwater. Nonetheless, as noted in the review comment, the hypothesis that differences in measured calcium concentrations between baseflow and groundwater in Lan are due to varying conditions and the saturation of secondary calcium products seems reasonable. This hypothesis is supported by values reported in other studies conducted near the Lan area and Alptal sub-catchments. Hagedorn et al. (Geoderma, 2001) reported acidic values (pH 5.1-5.9) for deeper soils (depths >30 cm) in the Lan area, while Fischer et al. (Hydrological Processes, 2015) reported basic pH values (median >8.0) in the baseflow of the Alptal sub-catchments.  
5. pH Observations (line 314): We did not measure pH, however, it is common that forest soils are more acidic. We will provide references to more studies, e.g., Huang et al. (Forest Ecology and Management, 2022) and Berthrong et al. (Ecological applications, 2009) to support this claim. 
6. Repetition Removal (line 473): We will remove the repeated phrase "from areas".
7. Clarification of Flow Mechanisms (lines 469-477): We will revise these lines for conciseness and clarity, to improve readability and understanding of the proposed flow mechanisms.
8. Clarification of Decrease in Concentrations (line 510): We intended to describe a decrease in concentrations at the catchment outlet as a result of stratification in groundwater concentrations and the rising groundwater table (process described in e.g., Knapp et al. (Hydrol. Process., 2022)). We recognize that the original wording may be confusing and will revise the paragraph for clarity.
9. Adjustment of Y-limits in Figure 3: We will adjust the y-limits in Figure 3 to reduce white space, particularly in plots such as Fe.

We believe these revisions will enhance the clarity and impact of our manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

Kind regards,

Izabela Bujak-Ozga

on behalf of all co-authors