Both reviewers gave very positive comments about the scientific significance and quality of the manuscript. Authors please submit a revised version with changes highlighted, responding to the comments by the two reviewers.

Both reviewers recommended that the manuscript should be accepted for publication. One reviewer suggested some minor revisions. For final punlication, the authors please try to make necessary revisions according to the following minor comments by the reviewer:
a) The following points mainly regard implementation of requested changes in the manuscript being neglected and only addressed in the author’s response:
Previous communication:
Page 3 Line 16: Please expand on possible effects of meshes used for bare soil plots on water infiltration
Page 4 Line 6: fresh material was harvested, what was the proportion of already dry material, particularly in comparison to previous study of Dubbert et al. during a nondrought year, and the different effects of plant cover on infiltration reported in the discussion. This may have also reflected on the event water use in transpiration.
Page 5 Line 5: Leaf sampling did not affect ET in the vegetation plots? How big was the reduction of leaf area through sampling? Could this have affected the temporal progress of T from event water? Please elaborate on this here.
Authors responded adequately. However, text on author’s opinion on the effects of the meshes, proportion of dry material and leaf sampling on results being negligible should still be added to the manuscript, as this is information of importance to the reader.

b) Check usage of brackets with citations throughout the manuscript: E.g. Page 10 Line 24: Dubbert et al. (2014c) instead (Dubbert et al., 2014c)

c) Page 12 Line 28: I suggest citing Fig. A1 after “….in open areas” of the manuscript.