The paper received two independent reviews; it became clear that the paper needs to be revised before it can be accepted for publication. Note that I particularly appreciate the data collection and overall research. The paper contains also some good figures.
The response of the authors to one reviewer should guide the authors during the revisions. I appreciate the point by point response.
The other reviewer was more critical and questioned the structure and objectives of the paper. I agree that that the overall set-up (clear objectives, well supported conclusions etc.) needs to be improved and made more consistent. It is important that this remains a stand alone scientific contribution, some related results might have been published in other papers and/or the PhD dissertation of the first author, but the reader of this paper does not know this.

Thank you for incorporating requested changes and detailing so well where and how you have improved the manuscript. The improved paper is ready to be published in HESS.
Regards, Stefan Uhlenbrook