Reply on RC1

The novelty of the study is not sufficiently highlighted. The additional value of the performed analysis is not clear because the Introduction does not provide a sufficient overview of findings on the controls of nitrate hysteresis from the existing highfrequency studies. Particularly, the Introduction should clearly indicate what is known so far about the role of event characteristics on the hysteresis patterns and what is the additional value of the analysis performed in this study. Moreover, it should be indicated what kind of additional information the analysis of TKN might provide compared to the analysis of nitrate concentrations alone.

The rationale for the analysis of two selected substances should be clearly stated, as well as the rationale for the choice of event characteristics. Why are particularly these event characteristics expected to be decisive for hysteresis patterns? A more hypothesis-oriented choice of these characteristics might also be helpful to highlight the novelty and the additional value of this study compared to the previous literature.
Following your advice, we have clarified this in the text. See L. 155-156.
The connections of different hysteresis patterns to the particular runoff generation processes in the Discussion Section are rather speculative and need more in-depth clarifications and evidence from related field studies or own observations. Following your indications, we have improved the discussion section. See L. 329-405

Clarifications
There is little discussion provided on the identified relations between event characteristics and nitrate and TKN hysteresis patterns in the Discussion Section, although it appears to be the central topic of the manuscript.
This information was added in revised manuscript. See L. 390-405.

Detailed comments
Line 12: The title implies the analysis of several catchments, although in fact the analysis was performed in a single catchment. Please revise.
Our apologies, we have corrected this.
Line 17: Not clear what is meant here by the overall dynamics of hysteresis. Please clarify.
We have deleted overall Line 18: Not clear what is meant here by "parameters". Please clarify.
Our apologies, we have modified this.
Line 19: Please be more cautious with such statements. It is rather difficult to infer particular runoff generation processes directly from hysteresis patterns. Please revise.
It was revised in the new version of the manuscript.
Lines 19-21: Consider providing here an explanation why there are such considerable differences in the hysteresis patterns of NO3 and TKN.
The explanation was included in the discussion section.
Line 22: Consider providing more details on how exactly different event characteristics affect corresponding hysteresis patterns. Moreover, please clarify what is the difference between "runoff" and "discharge" here.
This information was added. See L. 20-23.
Lines 29-31: This is rather general, the Introduction can benefit from a more specific opening sentence.
The sentence was replaced. See L. 30.
The references were added. See L. 40-80 Lines 59-60: I cannot agree with this statement. The analysis of nitrate hysteresis are rather often performed in the headwater catchments since high frequency observations are usually only available from local research observatories (see e.g., Knapp et al., 2020;Winter et al., 2020;Mussolf et al, 2021;Koenig et al., 2010;Vaughan et al., 2017 among many others).
Following your advice, we have modified this paragraph.
Line 62: What is meant here by "clean" rural catchment? Please clarify.
Our apologies, the paragraph have been replaced.
Lines 71-72: What these drivers can be? This part of the Introduction should provide a clear rationale on selecting event characteristics for the analysis based on findings from previous studies and/or own hypothesis on which characteristics might be potentially important for the hysteresis of NO3 and TKN concentrations.
Lines 72-74: Are such studies becoming increasingly rare? I would argue that CQ studies become increasingly frequent as the density of observations has increased in the past decades. Please clarify.
Our apologies, the paragraph was rewritten following your comments. 55-60 Line 74: Please clarify why there is a particular interest in the concentrations of TKN and how its analysis complements NO3 investigations.
This information was added. See L. 72-80 Lines 69-85: The structure of the Introduction and especially of this last paragraph is rather confusing. The Introduction has to be streamlined and clearly present the current state of the art on the topic of nitrate hysteresis and its potential controls, indicate the knowledge gap and provide clear objectives of this study that strive to close this gap.
The introduction and objectives were rewritten.
Line 90: What is meant here by relief? The difference between max and min elevation? Please clarify.
It was clarified. See L. 101. Lines 138-139: Please clarify how baseflow conditions were identified. Was baseflow separated? Which method was used for that? How is the start of the next event defined?
This information was added. See L. 150-154 Lines 142-148: The choice of these particular event characteristics has to be clarified. Why exactly these characteristics? What do authors expect to find by investigating them? Moreover, some of the characteristics e.g., water yield, rainfall kinetic energy have to be introduced in more detail, i.e., source, definition etc. The duration of the events now is provided in h.
Line 147: How was the initial phase of the falling limb identified? Please clarify.
We are referring to slope of the falling limb; i.e. after peak discharge. See L. 165 Line 151: Please clarify what is meant here by "metal load". It is a mistake; it is referring to N load Our apologies, it is a mistake. It was corrected. See L. 165.
Lines 159-168: Please notice that EC is not always applicable for pre-event and event water separation (see e.g., Musolff et al. 2015;Musolff et al., 2020). Please indicate if implemented assumptions are expected to be valid in the study area. Moreover, the results of this separation were barely mentioned in the Results section and are absent from the Discussion altogether. Consider either removing this separation or including it more distinctly in the analysis of hysteresis patterns. Generally, it is not clear what additional insights about the controls of hysteresis patterns can be gained from this analysis.
Following the indications of two reviewers the hydrograph separation using EC was deleted.
Lines 171-172: Please clarify why multiple-peak events cannot be considered.
In multiple-peak events the relationship between N concentration and discharge is difficult to define (e.g. several peaks of N concentrations) Lines 173-175: Please clarify why visual examination was preferred to the automated approaches. How can the robustness of the performed classification be verified?
The visual examination was used for verification Line 177: Please indicate what is exactly meant by "figure of eight".
We refer to figure-eight hysteresis, which were classified as clockwise or anticlockwise depending on the succession of the peak concentration and peak discharge, in a similar way to Bieroza and Heathwaite (2015). See L. 181-183. Table 1: Please explain what is V.C.? Consider including delta_t to the "antecedent conditions" group, as it rather represents pre-event than event conditions. Moreover, please clarify why it has units of days when the observations are available on much finer resolution? Is that the reason for its min value being equal to zero? This is rather confusing as it makes an impression that a consecutive event can start at the same time step when the previous event finishes.
Following your comments, Table 1 was improved.
CV: coefficient of variation. delta_t was included into antecedent condition. The units were changed to hours. In same cases, consecutive runoff events can occur.
Line 192: Please clarify what AR stands for? Generally, the manuscript is oversaturated with many not very intuitive acronyms. Consider using full terms instead.    Line 246: In case of NO3, only 62% of events have positive delta C. This is not very similar to 93% for TKN. Please revise.
Our apologies, it was deleted.
Line 246: Compared to baseflow or to the pre-event values? Baseflow was not formally separated (at least the Method section provides no indication of such analysis). Please revise.
It was revised.
Lines 296: Please clarify what kind of information is provided in the parenthesis.
It refers to N-NO3 concentrations. See L. 320.
Lines 305-307: Anticlockwise hysteresis was also linked previously to a particular spatial distribution of sources (see e.g., Vaughan et al., 2017). Please indicate if this can also be the case in this study catchment.
This seems not be case in the study catchment. See L. 341-344 Lines 312-315: Please indicate how the point with maximum contribution of subsurface flow can be identified here.
It was identified from EC. See L. 334-335.
Line 315-316 : Such a statement requires references. Please add.
The reference was added. See L. 341.
Lines 319-321: Please clarify why particularly in these years such conditions have arisen. Moreover, this sentence is rather confusing, please revise.
The sentence was revised.
Lines 326-328: Is there any evidence of surface runoff presence in this particular study catchment? Please clarify.
Although surface runoff only represents a small percentage of the flow, we have field evidence of surface runoff in particular events.
Lines 329-330: This seems like a description of the "eight" hysteresis shape that was not considered in the classification in this paper. Lines 356-357: The relation between rainfall intensity, discharge rates and nitrogen loss is not clear from this description. Please provide more process-oriented hypotheses on how event characteristics might affect hysteresis.
It was rewritten in the revised manuscript. See L. 395-398.
Line 359-361: This rather contradicts earlier statements (Line 232-233) that nitrate concentration in winter (wet season) is higher than in any other season. Please clarify.
It was deleted in the revised manuscript.
Line 363: What is meant here by "strength of the event". Please clarify.
It was deleted in the revised manuscript.
Line 368: What do you mean here by "losses" here? Consider using a more conventional term here.
The term losses was substituted by delivery. See L. 401 Lines 368-370: This statement would be much more clear if the main sources of TKN were introduced earlier. This is the first time they are mentioned in the manuscript. Please revise.
It was revised.
Lines 377-379: Be cautious providing statements that are not directly inferable from your own results. It is rather difficult to identify dominant runoff generation processes from hysteresis patterns alone.
Following your comments, it was deleted in the revised manuscript.
Following your indications, we have used NO3-in the revised manuscript Line 150: Consider using "initial" instead of "0".
Following your comment, we have used Cinitial.
Lines 183, 190: The term "trend" is not clear here. Consider using the term "slope" instead.
Our apologies, we have substituted the term trend by slope Line 185: Please add "ΔC=" on the left side of equation 2 Line 199, 203: consider using "classes" instead of "regions" as these cases do not have any spatial aspect.
Ok, the term regions were replaced.
Line 229: word order: "with discharge" should be before "were observed" Thank you for the correction. See L. 248.
Line 238: than before the event.
Ok, it was corrected.
Line 239: an increase in NO3 Thank you for the correction. See L. 258.