This manuscript presents in great details the monitoring protocols, methods, and results at two field sites for installed leaky wooden dams. The data presented herein are potentially of great value to both fundamental river research and practice. Such data (and the in-depth analysis) are rare in the literature. The manuscript is also well organized and written, though some consolidation and reduction in length are needed. I recommend the publication of this work. Some of my specific comments are as follows:

1. The Introduction section can be shortened. While comprehensive, there are many things are obvious, such as the lengthy description on the benefits of large wood and their impact.
2. Line 80: “A key unknown of is …”. “of” should be removed.
3. The whole manuscript is full of technical details, such as software used, data processing algorithms, etc. It reads much like a project report, not a concise journal paper. I suggest move some of the nonessential details into supplementary materials.
4. Following on the comment above, I suggest the authors to add more analysis and explanations based on the data and observations. For example, Line 272 to 275: why at LD2 “Downstream peaks were generally shorter in duration than upstream”? This intrigues me. Don’t the upstream and downstream water depths synchronize?
5. Lines 285 onward for the GSD at LD2: I think what is observed makes sense. It is a dam after all. Fine materials deposit upstream in the pool and sediment coarsens downstream. A simple sentence like this makes the manuscript reads better rather than description only.
6. The authors need to comment on the limitation of their bed elevation analysis. They assumed the change of bathymetry is 100% due to the installation of LDs. Could be something else, e.g., upstream changes and fluctuations of sediment supply? Even without LDs installed, could there be any natural temporal variations of bathymetry over time?
7. Did the LDs change over time? For example any recruitment of debris, clogging, or change of LDs itself due to decay, abrasion, and other processes?

The objective of this paper is to evaluate the influence of two different LD (Leaky Dam) structures on the directionality and magnitude of geomorphic changes, geomorphic variability induced by the structures, and the importance of frequent monitoring to accurately assess long-term impacts at the local, unit scale. The study quantifies flow, geomorphic, and sedimentary impacts of two wooden LDs, one consisting of a single log and the other made of two sequential logs, over a 2.5-year period. Results include water depth, grain size distribution (GSD), and local morphology changes.

Overall, the paper is well-structured and provides valuable long-term field data and detailed statistical analysis, which is rare in real-world leaky dam studies. It holds significant scientific merit and quality. I recommend following minor revisions to further strengthen the manuscript.

Specific Comments:

1. Line 121: Please consider adding the minimum, mean, and maximum gap sizes for LD1, LD2a, and LD2b for easier comparison.
2. General results comment: When reporting parameter changes such as water depth, it would be beneficial to briefly attribute them to the physical mechanisms responsible.
3. Figure 4: Why are upstream and downstream D16, D50, and D84 values similar before January 2021 but diverge afterward? A discussion of the mechanisms driving changes in grain size metrics over time would enhance understanding.
4. Line 293: Could you clarify the relationship between flooding events and bed response, specifically how it compares in cases with and without interacting logs?
5. Line 395: Clarification on the LD2 Structure Effectiveness. Is the observed increased flow complexity and attenuation at LD2 primarily due to LD2b or LD2a.
6. Line 410 states, "Water depth for LD2 was regulated upon the activation of LD2b." Could you clarify how much LD2a contributed to flow engagement? If LD2a has a minor role, what explains the significant differences between LD1 and LD2b, given they are the same log type?
7. Lines 414 & 451: Line 414 discusses LD2's effectiveness, while Line 451 highlights gap size as key for flow engagement. Could you clarify if LD2’s greater effectiveness stems from its structural complexity or if it's simply because LD1 did not interact with the flow due to the gap beneath it?
8. Porosity/Blockage Ratio: Porosity is briefly mentioned. Could you specify the porosity or blockage ratio of the LDs and provide a comparison? Did these values change over the study period?
9. Design Implications: What recommendations can you offer practitioners regarding LD design based on the site specifics such as in straight versus more complex channels?

Minor Editorial Suggestions:

1. Project Information: Including cross-sectional profiles and channel characteristics at the site would be helpful. A schematic diagram showing the channel layout and log positions would enhance clarity.
2. Figure 1(c): Consider adding an arrow indicating flow direction.
3. Line 261: Specify the location where increased scour occurs.
4. Line 283: The reference to “Fig. 8a” needs to be changed to “Fig. 9a.” Please verify and correct.
5. Figure 9:  Are changes relative to July 2019?  July 2019 line is shown in the legend, but it is not visible in the figure.