Dear authors,
I would take the opportunity to engage with the comments by 3rd reviewer placed on 17th january to have a final stab at the revision the manuscripts and incorporate where relevant the comments and suggestions made by this reviewer. I myself find several Figures, especially Fig.2, 3 and 6 very hard to see what is in it. Can these figures be made as large as possible, so I can see the symbols and treatments in it clearer. Even Figure 1 suffers from some of the sub-figures being rather small. The authors should also consider if all Figures are truly needed in the main text or if some more can go to supplementary materials.

Dear authors,
thanks for undertaking the revisions in line with the reviewers comments.
I think the paper is nearly ready to be published.
However, I would like to suggest as Figure 2 and 3 are hard to read in their current state, to move them to the supplementary material. But select for these Figures 2 and 3 a few key exemplary sub-figures which support the statements you are making in the text in a clear visual manner. As you have more space to display these figures.
They will become larger and then it is more easy to see the features of them commented on in the text. I propose that the coloured dots have a black outside line to make them stand out more. You may decide in the few key highlight figures .. to draw in some curve which give the general response of the parameters displayed with specific discharge.
Figure 4 seems to contain few data points, maybe these can be simply discussed in the text and the figure omitted.
Can these changes be implemented.

Dear Authors,
The paper can be published as it. I assume that it needs re-uploading without the yellow highlights. Maybe check with editorial@copernicus.org here how to proceed.
I would in future be more selective in the amount of material you add to supplementary section, maybe have some of this info on a more local web site.