Thank you for carefully considering and addressing the comments raised by the reviewers. I think your revisions have strengthened what was already a very nice paper that I expect will contribute significantly to our understanding of the role of shallow landslides in erosion, and particularly how geomorphic context determines the effect land use change on shallow landslides.

I have marked a number of additional minor suggestions/corrections on the attached; these may be helpful in further polishing your manuscript. I have also raised a few minor questions for you to consider, though I do not see these as being critical at this stage.

I wonder if you can provide a bit more detail about how you defined (and in practice) distinguished "shallow" from "deep" landslides that you excluded from your inventory. Both reviewers noted the importance of this point. I think your revision improves on this, but it might help if you can provide a little more detail, and ideally some more specificity about what defines this difference.

Finally, I have one interpretive question: in your Discussion on page 22, you note the difference in the effect of deforestation on landsliding in relict vs. rejuvenated terrain. Is there any difference in where deforestation itself is located in these two different parts of the landscape? For example, is deforestation in the rejuvenated terrain generally on less steep slopes? If so, that might contribute to differences in the observed landslide response to deforestation — so I wonder if it's something that might be worth considering?

Thank you for considering my comments, and those of the reviewers over the course of the discussion on this manuscript. I think it adds valuable new insight into shallow landslides related to deforestation and look forward to seeing it published!