Thanks for addressing the comments made by the two reviewers. The changes that you have made have improved the manuscript and I think that it is almost ready for publication. In the attached file I have identified a small number of places where the manuscript would benefit from further clarification, and ask you to address these changes.

Thanks for making these changes. I am now happy to recommend that your paper is published.

Best wishes,
Rebecca Hodge

Dear authors,

Having now reviewed your submission along with the AE and reviewer reports, I am pleased to formally accept this paper for publication in Esurf. I am sorry for the additional delay in confirming this decision while I have been away for fieldwork. I expect this paper will provide an important contribution to studies of grain size in fluvial deposits.

In reading the final version of your manuscript, I noted the following minor editorial points, which you might consider addressing before uploading your final manuscript files, or alternatively double checking during the proof stage. These are all very minor points which may also be caught during copy-editing, and I do not see them as holding up accepting your paper.

Thank you for submitting your work to Esurf.

Josh West


Minor points to check:
p2, line 4 - "it is" could be clarified; perhaps "this approach" would be better
p2, line 16 - remove "the" prior to "braided rivers"
p5, line 17 - "don't" should be "do not"
p8, line 8 - remove "of" after "dozen"
p8, line 29 - "particles" not "particules"
p8, line 33 - probably would be preferable to say "evidence for such modifications is not observed"
p9, line 6 - "a hydrological season" would be better than "an"
p9, line 16 - "this uniformity CAN (or MAY) be the case..." (verb is missing)
p9, line 24 - "Associate Editor" not "associated editor"
Figure 2a - I think it would be preferable to have lat/long on the x and y axes of this figure panel; I will not require this for accepting the paper, and I appreciate that it is a slightly more time-consuming change to make, but I think it would strengthen the figure (even if not adding this to the figure, I suggest that at least the caption should specify the projection system used)
Figure 3 - "elevation (z) is given...", adding "(z)"
Figure 5 - it may help to spell out in the caption the meaning of the "(-)" for CDF
Tables 1,2,4 - change "the Church et al. (1986)'s criteria" to either "Church et al. (1986)'s criteria" (removing "the"), or "the Church et al. (1986) criteria"