The replies to the referee comments appear all very appropriate and justified. From reading the revised manuscript and referee communications I suggest to address the comment by referee 1 about the potential hysteresis pattern and comments by referee 2 regarding table 1 (different sampling duration of calibration measurements), table 3 (a1, b1 and a2, b2 are the same for both sites) and new figure 15 (dashed lines are regression lines) not only in the replies to the comments but also in the manuscript. Likewise, make a link to the photos/sketches of the basket sampler from the manuscript (e.g., beginning of chapter 2.2). Please also update the title for the supplementary materials. Regarding the point about L265-266 by referee 2 ("...So, the system could also be potentially used for debris flows/floods..."), it may be useful -- in addition to the current discussion of own work -- to also give a short introduction of the findings by other studies, e.g., some of the ones mentioned by he referee.

Given these points are adequately addressed in the manuscript I have no reason to ask for further revisions.


Kind regards,


Michael Dietze

Dear Dieter and Bruno,
Please accept my apologies for the delays in handling your paper (as discussed via email). I am now delighted to accept your paper for final publication in ESurf subject to the small technical corrections noted by the AE above. Thank you for your patience with us - and I look forward to seeing your paper come out soon.
Best wishes,
Tom Coulthard