Soil , snow , weather , and sub-surface storage data from a mountain catchment in the rain – snow transition zone

A comprehensive hydroclimatic data set is presented for the 2011 water year to improve understanding of hydrologic processes in the rain–snow transition zone. This type of data set is extremely rare in scientific literature because of the quality and quantity of soil depth, soil texture, soil moisture, and soil temperature data. Standard meteorological and snow cover data for the entire 2011 water year are included, which include several rain-on-snow (ROS) events. Surface soil textures and soil depths from 57 points are presented as well as soil texture profiles from 14 points. Meteorological data include continuous hourly shielded, unshielded, and wind-corrected precipitation, wind speed and direction, air temperature, relative humidity, dew point temperature, and incoming solar and thermal radiation data. This data is often viewed as “forcing data”, and is gap filled and serially complete. Sub-surface data included are hourly soil moisture data from multiple depths from seven soil profiles within the catchment, and soil temperatures from multiple depths from two soil profiles. Hydrologic response data include hourly stream discharge from the catchment outlet weir, continuous snow depths from one location, intermittent snow depths from 5 locations, and snow depth and density data from ten weekly snow surveys. Snow and hydrologic response data are meant to provide data on the catchment hydrologic response to the weather data. This data is mostly presented “as measured” although snow depths from one sensor and streamflow at the catchment outlet have been gap filled and are serially complete. Though the weather, snow, and hydrologic response data only covers one water year, the presentation of the additional subsurface data (soil depth, texture, moisture, and temperature) makes it one of the most detailed and complete hydro-climatic data sets from the climatically sensitive rain–snow transition zone. The data presented are appropriate for a wide range of modeling (energy balance snow modeling, soil capacitance parametric modeling, etc.) and descriptive studies. Data is available at doi: 10.1594/PANGAEA.819837.

The authors mention several limitations in the data collection, namely the discharge data and the snow depth data. The equipment malfunctions, according to the paper, may account to 1.5 month of missing discharge measurements and to 4 months of missing snow depth measurements from ultrasonic sensors. Additionally, the soil moisture data collected at the southwest-facing slope display gaps (Fig. 4d) that are not discussed in the text (Part 5.4).
The provided dataset is suitable for purposes of snow cover model evaluation, as it provides thorough measurements of meteorological variables, soil temperature and snow cover characteristics. The instrument set-up and location seem to be relevantly chosen according to local topography and landscape, thus providing opportunity to correlate snow cover characteristics to physical conditions of the underlying surface.
Soil moisture modelling is another application of the described dataset, as the provided observations of the vertical soil moisture content distribution are suitable for models to be calibrated against. Distributed soil texture data is also provided.

Specific Comments:
 The authors mention (p. 814, line 14 -25) hydrological modelling and annual water balance calculations as possible applications for the provided dataset. This statement seems to be rather optimistic for two main reasons: the size of the catchment under consideration and the duration of the observation. The catchment area of 1.5 ha (it would be more appropriate to provide the area in sq. km) allows for its qualification rather as a hydrotope than an elementary basin. This assumption can be supported by the ephemerity of the local stream. Further investigation is probably required to assess the minimum size of the catchment to form permanent stream under given conditions. One-year duration of the observations seems to be also unsuitable for water balance calculations. No direct measurement of the evaporation is mentioned, which would be most appropriate for water balance studies. I suggest the authors to moderate the aforementioned statement (p. 814) on possible application of the dataset.
 Part 2: More detailed soil layer description apart from references to other studies would be more useful for a reader.  A more detailed description of the underlying bedrock and its hydrogeological properties would be more appropriate. The importance of such ephemeral streams as the one under consideration is mentioned in the paper, yet no further description is given concerning the interaction between the surface and the groundwater storage.  Part 5.3: Ialso recommend to provide the description of the stream ice conditions. Weather time series show air temperatures as low as -18⁰C, yet no cease in streamflow is observed due to freezing. This aspect should be either outlined in the paper, or illustrated by any observations available.
With the corrections mentioned above, the dataset and corresponding paper will be suitable for publication.