Dear authors,

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript, for your efforts to address the reviewer comments, and for your additional contributions to the archived dataset. This is an improvement. However, there are a number of edits and corrections still required, as outlined below. I encourage the authors to carry out a careful review of the manuscript, as I had found many errors, but may have missed some.

Specific Comments:

Page 1, Abstract: Please remove the CCRN preamble from the abstract (lines 10-16). This is not relevant here and the site predates CCRN.
Page 1, Abstract: the abstract should be revised to better explain the context and history of the site and the data collection activities here, as well as describing the general characteristics of the dataset.
Page 1, line 17: What do you mean “for the prairie research site”? This needs to be revised.
Page 1, line 23: remove the “s” from “positions”
Page 2, line 10: correct the phrase “…to ephemeral ponds that annually dry out annually.”
Page 2, line 21: the comment by reviewer #3 about wetland drainage has not been addressed. Was there any drainage before 1968?
Page 2, line 29: the word “activities” should be added after “research”
Page 2, 3, Introduction: the introduction section jumps around a lot and needs to be better organized. i.e. paragraphs 2, 4, and 6 deal with the site and its history of research activity, while paragraphs 1,3, and 5 deal with the landscape and physiographic setting.
Page 3, line 28: be careful about the term “net solar radiation”. Is this correct? I’m not sure, as the CNR4 measures the balance of incoming and outgoing short- and long-wave radiation.
Page 4, line 9 and Figure 2: Where does the snowfall data come from? There is mention later on of a Geonor installed in 2015, but where is the 2014-17 snowfall data from?
Page 4, line 18: Could you add a reference for the ESC snow tube? See https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2015RG000481 for more information.
Page 5, line 26 and Figure 4: I am not sure it is appropriate to call these hydrographs as the graphs show pond level fluctuations over time. A hydrograph shows discharge rate against time.
Page 6, line 22: the “229 probes” reference could be clearer, following a comment by reviewer #3.
Page 6, line 26: Fig 5 shows time series of EC. This should refer to Fig. 6.
Page 6, line 27: Where is transect 1 in Fig 1? And what is this, the snow survey transect? This should be more clear.
Page 7, lines3-4: the phrase “…comprising a shallow and relatively high permeability weathered till layers…” does not make sense. Is this plural? Then remove “a”.
Page 7, line 11: Delete “The” before “Figure 8”
Page 8, paragraph 2: What is the difference between V-SMOW and V-SMOW2, and SLAP and SLAP2? This could be more clear.
Page 9, line 10-11: Why is there a reference to Fig. 9? Should this be to Fig. 2 instead?
Page 9, line 23: again, I question whether these should be called hydrographs.
Page 10, line 2: why is there a reference to Fig. 4, which shows pond level fluctuations?
Page 10, line 10: the comment by reviewer #3 was not fully addressed. The correction was to have included the word “fraction” after “saturated water content”
Page 11: Acknowledgment: Please acknowledge the efforts of the Canadian Consortium for Lidar Environmental Applications Research (C-CLEAR) team for the lidar acquisition.
Page 17, Figure 2: you should be more clear what station the data plotted in each panel are from. Is the data in part (d) from a 2 m height?

Dataset:

Reviewer #3 had a comment about the headers of the .csv files having non-ASCII characters. Please clarify what was done in response and what changes were made.

Thank you for the efforts to address the last set of comments. The paper is now ready for final publication.