Dear Authors,

both referees concluded that the submitted manuscript presents original work of high scientific quality and strong relevance to the scope of Biogeosciences. At the same time, both referees recommended a number of technical corrections, clarifications, and improvements. These comments have been addressed in the Authors’ responses to referees’ comments, and need to be incorporated in a revised version of the manuscript before publication. Please refer to the reviewers’ comments and your answers for the revisions.

Sincerely,
Maria Tzortziou

Dear Authors,

thank you for your response to the reviewers’ comments. Some of the text in the revised manuscript needs further revision and clarification. Please, address the comments below:

1. In your response to the question regarding DOC and DIN methods, some years are indicated as “xxxxx” instead of a specific year. Please, correct. Also, this paragraph is too long and very difficult to read; you can just provide the type/material and pore-size of the filters; it is not necessary to mention the company and/or catalogue number (e. g, MILLIPOR HTTP04700). Please, revise.

2. Comment 5 by Reviewer #2 is not adequately addressed. “Could the impact be hidden by soil buffering effect or variations in the hydrological connectivity (e.g.: if less ET and less interception would induce more infiltration and deeper flowpaths through layers that would be poorer in DOC?) “. Could you please discuss in more detail in the manuscript? Also, in the response (lines 379-385), it is mentioned “these superficial changes are probably minor considering… ” I would suggest revising to “these changes are probably minor considering…”

3. In response to Comment #14, you mention that “For both, disturbance induced changes of DOC and hydrological processes, more sampling in high temporal-resolution should be undertaken to elucidate the effect of forest disturbance within the studied ecosystem.” Can you please indicate which parameters need to be measured at high spatial resolution (e.g., DOC, DIN NH4+, other?) and for which aspects of the model (e.g., calibration, evaluation, other?) this would be critical?

4. Response to comment #15 is not clear. The sentence ““more than two times 2 mg/l than the pre-disturbance value” is still not clear, please revise.

5. Some of the points discussed in your response to comments #16 and #19 are not adequately captured in the revised text in lines 379-385. Can you please revise the text accordingly to capture your response to Reviewer’s 2 technical comments $16 and #19?

Sincerely,
Maria Tzortziou
Associate Editor, Biogeosciences

Dear Dr. Hartmann,

Thank you for your response to the Reviewers and Editor comments and your revised manuscript.
I am now happy to recommend publication in Biogeosciences.

Best regards,

Maria Tzortziou
Associate Editor
Biogeosciences