This manuscript provides a detailed evaluation and comparison of runoff and snow simulations using different parameterization schemes of the Noah-MP land surface model in the Missouri River Basin. This work holds scientific value for disaster prevention and mitigation in the basin. However, I have several major concerns, detailed below.

Major Comments:

1. Line 150: I find it unreasonable to use the same initial conditions for the alternative parameterization experiments as for the default simulation. This approach likely affects some of the study's conclusions. I recommend performing a separate spin-up for each experiment. If computational resources are a constraint, the period from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 1999, could be used as the model spin-up phase.

2. Section 6.1: The study concludes that the alternative schemes address three specific limitations of the default scheme. I find these conclusions to be overly strong. Previous research suggests that the performance of land surface process schemes is often region-dependent.

3. Section 6.4: I agree with the two limitations identified in this section: first, that the scheme recommendations may not be directly applicable to other regions, and second, that the interactions between different land surface physical processes are not considered. I strongly recommend providing a more in-depth discussion of these points rather than merely noting them in passing.

Minor Comments:

4. In Figure 1, does the land cover map represent the actual dataset used in the simulations? Was the IGBP land cover classification scheme employed?

5. In Figure 4a, the default scheme fails to accurately reproduce the seasonal variation in groundwater storage, whereas it performs well in Figure 4b. Could the authors please attempt to explain this discrepancy?

6. Is "ROS" in the manuscript an abbreviation for "rain-on-snow"? Please clarify.

Although the paper provides valuable implications for operational hydrology over the Missouri River Basin and the methodology section is strong, clearly explaining the differences between the alternative schemes and the default scheme, more effort is needed to make the paper suitable for publication in this journal.

First, the study does not advance the development of model parameterization schemes. Second, there is no thorough analysis explaining why SWE or runoff differ when the alternative parameterization schemes were used by providing changes in key intermediate variables. For example, in the case of the snow/soil temperature parameterization scheme, differences in parameterization may first influence ground temperature, which then impacts snowmelt and ultimately SWE. If the authors could show changes in ground temperature and snowmelt and link them to changes in SWE, the underlying processes would become clearer to readers, and this could also provide new insights. Similarly, in other cases, showing changes in key intermediate variables that influence runoff, either through SWE changes or through other pathways, would substantially improve the quality of the paper.

Most paragraphs in the Discussion section should be removed and rewritten, as, in my opinion, they are not persuasive in explaining the differences in runoff and SWE in the Results section of the paper. More effort should be devoted to explaining how differences in parameterization lead to differences in runoff and SWE by presenting changes in key intermediate variables.

For detailed questions and comments, please see the attached file.