Dear authors,
Both reviewers of this manuscript pointed out the scientific relevance of your work and its suitability for SOIL and that it is already at a very good stage. Congratulations for this well prepared submission. Both reviewers requested a series of comments which are all in the range of a minor revision and easy to address. I have also checked your feedback to both reviewers and I am satistfied with the point-by-point responses that you give to adress these comments. Therefore, I recommend to go forward with a minor revision before publication.
The implementation of the changes will be checked by the editor. To support this effort, please provide a revised version of the manuscript that adresses all points in a final and as well as a track-changes version, higlighting the changes. Please also provide a point-by-point response letter with line numbers indicating where all changes can be found in the revised manuscript.

I think the authors did a good job in revising the manuscript and I have no bigger concerns for going ahead with the publication process.
One thing that I think still needs additional attention is the newly added text on differences in observations potentially stemming from the timing of the sampling (two different seasons in 2018 vs 2019 were sampled). I think this is an important caveat that has to be put more prominently also in the conclusion and the abstract which sum-up the study to the reader. But I see the changes in this regard only in the discussion. Please amend or elaborate why you think otherwise.
Furthermore, the wording of the new text to describe 2018 v 2019 wetness differences is a bit confusing: for example, page 22: You start l.387 with "the wetter 2019" but in l.388 it is written "a drier 2019". I realize that these are different catchments, but I would advice to explain the discrepancies in the local weather conditions due to sampling and monitoring at different points in time already in the methods and then establish a clear wording how you call the seasonal differences. For example, in tables 2018 is described as the "wet period" but 2019 as the "drier period" instead of "dry period" or something similar. My advice would be to go through the manuscript and try to use clear and distinct wording whenever speaking of a dryer vs. wetter year, or a strong or weak dry/wet season.
Minor comment for l. 240. Just say “Data analysis was conducted in R (or using R) ”.

Dear authors, I am pleased to inform that your manuscript is recomendad to be accepted for publication in SOIL but topical Editor asked for some small additional amendments. Please follow his recomendaciones

Sincerely

Jorge