The authors have responded to the reviewer comments in this revised draft. My only comment in that respect is that the authors might have included a little more of the context the reviewers asked for regarding how the methods presented in the paper compare to other commonly used methods. I recognize, however, that the manuscript is already on the long side and that any such context that cannot be provided with a sentence or two (which the authors did) is arguably beyond the scope of the present paper.

The application of the method, much of the general interpretation of end members and grain shape, and most of the citations focus on aeolian transport. Has the method been applied to characterize subaqueous transport? I think the text (and even title and abstract) should make it clearer that the focus of the development and application of the method presented in the paper is related to aeolian transport.


Specific comments - mostly editorial but a few that might not be picked up in copyediting.

Fig. 1B: labels for field sites are very small. Perhaps coding the 4 regions by color and just numbering each with a larger number would make it easier to determine which site, e.g., is A1 or C3.

P5, L5&7: Rather than “land inward from” or “land inward area” I suggest using “landward from” and “landward area” or “inland area”

P6, L11: It would be helpful to add the abbreviation for the area equivalent diameter. That is, “in the form of an area equivalent diameter (D2d, Table 2)”

Table 2: I wonder if there is a way to rearrange this so that the first 5 entries are not listed with no information in the last 6 columns. Perhaps just have the derived characteristics in the table with the symbol, name and description of the measured variables in a separate table or in the table heading.

P15, L10: It seems awkward to begin a section with a reference to an appendix. Consider adding the figure in Appendix H to the text; or perhaps omit the first sentence and just refer to Appendix H at the end of the next sentence.

P15, L25: Legend for Appendix I (formerly J) still refers to panels as J1, J2, as does the figure itself. Also on L24 I would replace word “drastically” with something like “greatly”.

P19, Fig. 12: The colors corresponding to EM1-3 and EM3-3 are reversed and need to be corrected.

P22, L15: “Sediment traps on the …”

Dear Mr van Hateren and co-authors,

Thank you for working with AE Pat Wiberg and her referees during the review and revision process. Your manuscript has gained in clarity and impact as a result. The AE has some remaining concerns, which I share.

Most importantly, the focus of the study on aeolian transport should be made clear in title, abstract and discussion. It is reasonable to expect that your method also applies to sediment in other transport environments, this aspect remains underrepresented. Unless you want to engage in the considerable effort of widening the scope of application, I ask that you precise the environment in which you have worked from the start.

I accept that a comprehensive comparison with other extant methods requires more space than is available here, and won't preess for further changes on this front. However, I do ask that you make the further technical corrections the AE has suggested.

Once you have made these changes, we shall be happy to accept your manuscript for publication in ESurf.

Your materials will be handled by the desk editors of Copernicus. Please help expedite the publication process by responding without delay to their prompts and requests.

Thank you for submitting your work to ESurf. We look forward to seeing your paper in its final form.

Hartelijke groet,
Niels Hovius