Carbon Balance and Streamflow at a Small Catchment Scale 10 Years after the Severe Natural Disturbance in the Tatra Mts, Slovakia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents original results of research into carbon regime and surface runoff in stream catchments, which were affected by wind calamity eventually by fire. What are the authors' recommendations for the management of forests affected by disturbances in the context of carbon sequestration? Could the authors explain why there were no dramatic changes in surface runoff? Consider this only as a recommendation.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for positive assessment and valuable advices to improve our manuscript. First of all, we have had the grammar and spelling in our manuscript checked and corrected by a professional agency.
Your advice to explain why no dramatic changes happened in the affected catchments and what are the recommendations for natural resources management are more deeply discussed in the main text and summarized in conclusions.
Peter Fleischer Jr
On behalf of the authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear editor and authors,
The paper is very interesting and can represent a good advance to protect and know mountainous ecosystems. I consider that it is something long and there are too many data. Some figures need some improvements and clarifications in the figure captions. I consider that the sources of the data included in the study area description must be included. Check the sub- and super-scripts in the text. Add numbers to the chapters and sub-chapters. The discussion is very interesting but the conclusions too long. Please, see more comments in my attached pdf.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for positive assessment and critical advices to improve our manuscript. First of all, we have had the grammar and spelling in our manuscript checked and corrected by a professional agency.
We agree that the paper is rather long and contains a lot of data, but on the other hand we believe that our approach is unique also from methodological point of view. For this reason, we decided to show the relevancy of all input data.
All the figures you pointed out have been improved and the captures added or clarified.
Missing sources of data in the site description section have been added.
The chapters and subchapters were numbered.
The conclusions were party shortened and reformulated. Nevertheless, we believe that due to large amount of data and the workload, this extend might be accepted.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
I see that you worked a lot on this paper and it deserves to be published. Please, consider to write equation 1 as text and include all the figures in high resolution, now they are not clear.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you very much for valuable comments and recommendation which substantailly helped to improve our manuscript.
We have changed Eq.1 from picture to text.
To your second note we would like to inform you that all the figures has been sent to the publisher in high resolution tiff format. The manuscript with such a big files would make it difficult to handle. But if required, we can insert HR figures.
With kind regards
P. Fleischer Jr. et al.
