Dear Jakob and colleagues,

With apologies for the long delay of our editorial decision, I am
writing to confirm that we are now ready to accept your manuscript for
publication in Earth Surface Dynamics, pending some technical corrections.

First, I owe you an explanation for the unusual long time this decision
has taken. The handing Associate Editor has stepped down and did not
complete proceedings on your manuscript. In such situations, time is
lost because other personnel must read into the case. Instead of finding another AE, I have decided to take on the task of taking final steps towards publication with you.

I have written last week with my editorial decision, going outside the official ESurf communication channels. I have done this to speed up the publication process. Below, you find a carbon copy of that email. My instructions remain unchanged.

Thank you for dealing thoroughly with the many referee comments. It is
rare to have four sets of comments, it looks like the AE sent requests
to several people at once and they all replied. As a result, you have
had more feedback than is common, but there is a pattern amongst the
comments, and your actions in response represent a substantial
improvement in the clarity of the manuscript. I see no need to send the
piece back to referees for further comment as I believe that you have
dealt robustly with all major points, and am happy to see it go forward
to publication.

I ask, though, for some minor changes to improve the visibility and
legibility of the title and abstract. I suggest to change the title to:

Sediment supply from lateral moraines to a debris covered glacier in the
Himalaya.

Drop the word 'tongues' from the abstract. Simply use 'glaciers'.

Mention structure-from-motion as the technique used to construct DEMs.
This is a key search term for many colleagues.

Line 8: make clear that the elevation change reported here is within the
moraines.

Line 10: When reporting seasonal rates, then a time unit smaller than yr
is appropriate. Consider using month instead. This is not an
instruction. Feel free to decide otherwise.

Line 12: can you give a range on the debris thickness?

Line 12: ... possibly reducing melt rates of underlying glacier ice.


In addition, the figures need some attention:

The legends of the picture boxes in Figs. 2 and 3 are not clearly
legible, due to lack of contrast. Please use a background that provides
more contrast.

Figure 9C needs more space, and/or larger symbols and lettering.


With these changes, and copy edits from the Copernicus staff, this
manuscript will be a valuable contribution to the literature on glacier
dynamics. Thank you for submitting your work to ESurf.

Hartelijke groet,


Niels Hovius

Dear authors,
Now with my editorial hat on, I can click some last buttons for your manuscript. Once you have dealt with my technical comments, please work efficiently with the Copernicus editors to expedite the publication of your manuscript.
Meanwhile, I am happy to offer you a 25% reduction of our publication fee as a symbolic gesture to offset the adverse effects of the editorial delays incurred while evaluating your manuscript.
Thank you for submitting your study with this unique data set on glacial debris to ESurf. We trust that it will receive good attention.
Best wishes,
Niels Hovius