We thank the authors for their thorough response to reviewer comments of their revised manuscript. Both reviewers agree that the paper has improved and that the majority of their comments have been satisfactorily addressed by the authors.

The reviewers have raised a few remaining points that I agree the authors should address. There are two main suggestions raised by both reviewers are (1) reorganize the discussion to include the paleoclimate records currently introduced in the conclusions and (2) A more thorough discussion of certain references, in particular to the recent Sinclair 2019 paper, as well as a more thorough inclusion of the Feinstein et al. paper, as they apply to your findings.

In addition to addressing the remaining comments from Drs. Schildgen and Tremblay, I’ve attached some suggested technical corrections. As these are largely comments related to organization, I have marked these as minor revisions and do not see a need for further external review.

I look forward to seeing this in Esurf!

Sincerely,
Claire Masteller


Additional editorial comments (note: comments made on PDF version with track changes enabled)

L30: replace “big” with “large”

L31: Consider modifying to “21Ne exposure times calculated in Miocene cherts (…) are generally shorter than exposure times calculated in the actively eroding chert nodules presented here (…) and other actively eroding chert surfaces in hyperarid environments.”

L42-45: This sentence is a bit awkward, considering revising. Perhaps split into two sentences at “as”?

L46: consider revising to “across different scales and geologic settings.”

L47-50: consider replacing “the further back in time we go” with less colloquial language. One suggestion would be removing this sentence and rewriting the next sentence as follows “The decreased preservation of older sediments in fluvial systems, due to burial or recycling, adds difficulty to the reconstruction of past tectonic or climatic conditions with increased sediment age.”

L63-L66: Consider shortening this sentence or breaking into two.

L69: Change “compare” to “quantify differences” or something similar to avoid using “comparison” and “compare” so closely.

L92: Consider revising first half of this sentence to “Following abandonment of the Hazeva River, new…” to eliminate some repetition with the previous sentence

L100: Consider changing “typical to fluvial” to “typical of fluvial”

L101: Add comma after “Here”

L113: Consider replacing “believed” with “hypothesized”; Consider breaking into two sentences by removing “While” and ending the first sentence after wetter, as these are separate thoughts.

L128: Consider replacing “the sediment” with “sediments” here and in the next sentence

L129: Consider starting a new sentence after “exposure and deposition”, changing “i.e.” for “For example”

L139-141: You say you collected ten samples, but I only count eight listed in the next sentence, please clarify.

L144: Consider removing “overall”

L151: I see the other two samples are introduced now – consider specifying this in your above list and then discussing each set separately.

L214: Consider removing “Alternatively” and instead saying “The sand samples could also” to avoid using “Alternatively” and “Conversely” in consecutive sentences (which can be confusing for the reader)

L217: Consider rephrasing to remove “participated”, as this wording anthropomorphizes the chert grains – perhaps “underwent”? - Also, are these all chert samples or just the chert sediments? I find this discussion a bit confusing, and would suggest the authors clarify to make the nodule and sediment concentrations more distinct.

L221-222: Please revise this sentence for clarity – perhaps “ … on chert samples, where the diffusion length-scale is not straightforward.”

L227: Consider removing “in support of this claim”

L275: Consider revising. Exposure/exposed is used 3 times in this sentence.

L293: Please revise “how long were samples exposed” for clarity

L300: Change “firstly” to “first”

L306: Consider changing to “leads”

L308: Consider replacing “not enough” with “insufficient”

L310: Consider removing or rephrasing “and how significant it was”

L316-L321: I find the description here to be a bit confusing. Please revise for clarity.

L322: Consider replacing “Taking into consideration the different types of evidence resport” to “Given this evidence”; remove “we believe”

L324 - 327: Consider revising to “The use of a single elevation to calculate paleo-production rates introduces a second difficulty, as it does not account for spatial variations in elevation due to catchment topography.”

L329: Consider revising this sentence for clarity – one suggestion would be “These uncertainties in paleo-production rates, due to assumptions in catchment paleoelevation, …”

L332: Consider revising to “Accounting for uncertainties described above,”

L337: Correct to “members”

L339-L344: I think that you should clarify here that chert pebbles were only active during the Miocene, as compare to the recycled sand samples, and that their inheritance of 21Ne from previous cycles inhibits their use to infer erosion rates. In particular, I am not sure the contrast between the exhumation and transport histories of the sand and chert and made as distinct as they could be. I suggest the authors clarify this point.

L335: I am confused whether these are the chert sediments or the in situ chert modules, please be precise in your reference of each set of samples.

L358: Consider removing “Lastly”

L362: Please remove “For currently exposed in situ samples reported here, it is a reasonably simple answer.” Let the readers draw their own conclusion from your reasoning.

L364: Consider revising to “…are relatively long, integrating hundreds…”

L370-375: Correct typos

L377: Correct to “how much faster paleo-erosion rates were”

L400-411: I think, even if these studies are insufficient, they should be discussed further. In particular, please specify which of the studies you reference show a decrease in exhumation rates by citing them in the next sentence. This section could be expanded and I agree with Dr. Tremblay that the additional paleoclimate data in the conclusion should be added to this section to better bolster your interpretation.

L405: Correct to “Morag et al. (2019) suggest that” – provide more information regarding how these conclusions were drawn and how they support your interpretation

Fig. 2a – please indicate units for elevation colorbar

Fig 4 – use of a log scale may make the data more visible (especially in panel 3) – you might want to give that a try and see how it looks. I defer to the authors on this.

Dear authors,

First and foremost, my apologies for a delayed decision on this manuscript, but given the current global situation, I do hope that you understand.

I’d like to thank the authors very much for their work on these revisions. I feel as though that the remaining suggestions have been adequately addressed. On the last read through I noticed two small edits to figures that should be made prior to publication. I have also made one small suggestion to improve phrasing at the end of the discussion.

I have marked these as technical corrections. Following these final small changes, I look forward to seeing your manuscript in E-Surf.

All the best and stay well during these times,
Claire

Suggested changes:
(1) Line 369 – remove “which”, Line 370 – remove “that”
(2) Figure 1. Please add labels for longitude to the x-axis. Consider changing the black text on dark blue background to white for improved legibility.
(3) Figure 3. Please add a legend to the plot, description of labels on the x-axis to the figure caption – perhaps “separated by labeled sample location.”

Dear Michal and authors,

Thank you for your patience, and for working with AE Claire Masteller and here referees in the review and revision process. Claire advises that some minor technical corrections are needed and I ask you to implement these. Also, I notice that there has been discussion about inclusion of a reference to https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/47/1/3/566641/Detrital-cosmogenic-21Ne-records-decoupling-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext. I agree with the AE that this publication is relevant to your work and urge you to follow her advise by adding a mention of this article to your manuscript. After these changes, your manuscript will be ready for publication.

Will you please work efficiently with the Copernicus publishers in preparing your manuscript for print? You will be prompted by them and your swift response will help reduce the time to publication.

Thank you for submitting this interesting manuscript to ESurf. We regret the slightly longer time line of the review process. Circumstances have caused delays in processing. I hope that you will understand. The final outcome is a very worthwhile publication, which I look forward to seeing appear in ESurf. I trust that it will receive due attention.

Sincerely,

Niels Hovius