Dear authors,

I have received reviews of your revised manuscript by the original referees. Both of them are largely satisfied with the changes you have made. There are some technical details and small scientific points that still need to be adressed. I do not anticipate that I need to send out the revised manuscript for review again.

Thanks for you work and I am looking forward to seeing the revised paper.

Best wishes, Jens Turowski


Some minor comments:
1.28 This is not true in general – there are several methods that can provide continuous measurements in principle. These include Bunte traps (here, the limiting factor is the need for operators), Birkbeck-type samplers or monitored settling basins (see, e.g., the installation at the Pitzbach). A classic example is the conveyer belt method used at Godwin Creek and the rotating panels used in St. Anthony Falls Lab (used by Hubbell). More modern approach would be video-based. Automatically monitored tracers (radio tracers or passive tracers that pass a fixed antenna) can also, in principle, yield continuous data.
7.5 Period and space missing after ‘Figure 5’.

Dear authors,

thanks for the revised paper. I have only a couple minor queries and suggestions. Mainly, I suggest to move the additional figures from an appendix (which would be part of the published paper manuscript) to online supporting material (which will be linked from the paper). If you agree, I ask you to write a brief paragraph introducing the online supporting figures and uploading them separately.

Further, I am still not happy with the statement about direct bedload measurements. Sorry to press on this, but I still think this is inaccurate. Direct sampling CAN provide automatic, continuous measurements at high temporal resolution during long periods, and has done so. Two examples: (i) the Pitzbach installation used a settling basin, with essentially a big weighing scale inside. Once the basin filled up, it was automatically flushed. The data series that I have worked with yielded 15-minute measurements over two years - fully automatic and continuous without the need for the presence of operators (see, e.g., Turowski & Rickenmann, ESPL 2009). (ii) The conveyer belt method at Godwin Creek, yielding ten thousands of data points. See publications for example of Kuhnle.
Please reformulate that such monitoring is possible, but typically expensive and technically challenging.

I have decided on technical corrections. The paper will go to production as soon as you upload the revised version.

Thanks and looking forward to the final paper.

Jens Turowski

Dear Thomas and co-authors,
Thank you for working with AE Jens Turowski and his referees to bring your manuscript to publishable standard. Jens has stipulated some important technical corrections that remain to be done. I am happy to accept your paper for publication in ESurf as soon as these corrections have been completed. This should not take much time, and I encourage you to engage quickly to minimize delays. In the next phase, you will receive prompts from a desk editor at Copernicus. These will be aimed at preparing the publication in its final form. Please pay careful attention to any questions and suggestions, and make sure to check the proofs in good time.
Thank you for submitting your work to ESurf. I trust that it will receive good attention.
Niels Hovius