I would like to thank the authors for the revised version of the manuscript and the detailed reply to the reviewer comments. We may consider the manuscript for publication in HESS after careful consideration of the revised manuscript. Please keep in mind in future that HESSD is an open discussion journal, so the usual process is that you provide immediate feedback and discussion to the reviewers remarks during the discussion period. After the discussion period and based on the authors comments, I will make a decision and then you can proceed as suggested. As you have done this in combination, the decision you will find means, that you should upload the revised version you have already provided and we will proceed as noted with major revisions.

Best regards
Markus Weiler

Dear authors,
the paper was reviewed again by one of the reviewers and the reviewer is supporting publication in HESS. I also had a detailed look at the revised paper and would like to ask the authors to correct the following points, before the paper can be accepted for publication in HESS:
1) please change the color codes in the maps on Figure 1 of the two study sites. the two colors are the same, but they represent different properties (swale and planar vs forest and peat). This is misleading.
2) Table 4 shows that all slopes are statistically different from zero except Na and Fe in Upper Hore. It may help to also highlight the elements which show a chemostatic, dilution and non-chemostatic behavior as shown in Figure 2.

Best regards
Markus Weiler

Thanks for taking care of the minor changes. I am suggesting to have the paper published in HESS as it is.

Best regards
Markus Weiler