Dear Xiangang Jiang & Co-authors,

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript and responses to the reviewers’ comment. Given the comments from the two reviewers, both of which pointed out major flaws in the interpretation of the experimental setup (e.g., sandbars vs. boulder bars), calculations, and discussion of the results, I would like to send the manuscript out to review again. However, I would first like you to further address some of the comments from the reviewers, mainly regarding the text organization, setup of your scientific objectives and discussion.

• Reviewer #1 points out that the manuscript is lacking a scientific justification of the study as well as an explanation of the contribution of the results to the scientific community. Your response states that you have addressed this in one sentence in the abstract. However, this text is needed Introduction, and the Discussion needs to more clearly explain how the results contribute to a wider understanding of morphologic changes following outburst floods.
• As Reviewer #1 also pointed out, the manuscript is lacking a presentation of hypotheses or a clear scientific question to answer. Currently, the closest statement to an objective is found on Lines 79-82; however, this statement sounds more like a descriptive aim rather than a clear objective addressing a gap in scientific understanding of this type of system. Please phrase your objective to answer a scientific question.
• Discussion: The discussion is somewhat approved from the previous version; however, the Discussion needs substantial improvement in order to put these results in a larger scientific context. First, the Discussion should start with referring back to the scientific objective stated in the Introduction (see previous point) in order to summarize the results for the reader and explain how the scientific objective was met (or answers hypotheses). Then you should explain how your results are supported (or not) by other studies. Currently, the Discussion only references two other studies, which is not sufficient to put this study in a larger context of boulder bars or channel morphology downstream of outburst floods. These cannot be the only two studies examining morphology downstream of outburst floods. This comment relates to the first bullet point that the manuscript is lacking scientific justification and explanation of how this study connects to a wider scientific context of outburst floods, channel morphology and boulder bars, beyond this one case on the Yigong River.
• L259: Minor comment about word choice: the word ’abdomen’ was changed to ’waist’, but this is still not the appropriate word here. Perhaps ’middle’ is more appropriate?

I look forward to reading your revised manuscript.

Best Regards,
Lina Polvi

Dear Xiangang Jiang & Co-authors,

I have now reviewed two reviews of your revised manuscript, one of whom reviewed the original manuscript. Although Referee #3 has some serious concerns regarding congruency of the experimental design with the study objectives, I believe that you should be able to address this concern through more careful wording of the objectives and discussion of the results. In addition to addressing this major concern, please address the additional minor comments from both reviewers before the manuscript is ready for publication.

Best Regards,
Lina Polvi Sjöberg

Dear Authors,

Thank you for taking the time to address the multiple rounds of reviewers' comments to improve the manuscript. I believe that you have addressed the critical comments and that the manuscript now conveys your results within an appropriate scientific manuscript.

Best Regards,
Lina Polvi

Dear Authors,
Thank you for the extensive revisions and changes you have made to your manuscript since review. I am delighted to inform you that it has now been accepted for final publication in ESurf. Thanks once again for your work on the paper.
All the best
Tom