Thanks a lot for this very interesting paper / database.

It addresses a relevant research and data gap. The scientific quality is very good and, for sure, adequate for ESSD.

Generally speaking, I think the database should also include the geographic data in GIS format over the area, at least the ones used for generating Table 1, to allow an integrated use/analysis of the database.

Minor comments:

Lines 56-57 "By analyzing the response of eight small Mediterranean catchments across different environments, Smetanová et al. (2018)..." The cited paper refers to seven catchments in the North Mediterranean and only one (which is the one in the present study) in the South Mediterranean. Please extend the literature review to more sources to other similar studies in the South Med region.

Line 84, Figure 1. It is not clear if the LAKE boundary extends over the GBV area. Please consider a double line or a clearer symbology. I would include also the altimetry (DEM) of the area.

Line 111, Figure 2. Not sure if the images can have a Copyright if the publication is CC-BY

Line 122, Table 1. Insert the area of the lake for the LAKE catchment

Line 186. Insert "3.1"

Line 270. You could include the equation of the curve and how it was created.

The data paper by Hamdi et al present hydro-sedimentary observations of the Kamech catchment, Tunisia.

Considering the challenges of maintaining such an observatory yielding time series of 18 years (some longer), these data definitely merit publication.

The authors take great effort in documenting and quantifying data sources and quality. Some of the used criteria (necessarily) remain slightly fuzzy and categorical. I annotated the text where this could be improved.

The literature review needs to be enhance. By pointing at similar data sources. the uniqueness of the presented data should be highlighted.

Furthermore, detail on some technical aspects of measurements need to be supplied.

Conversely, the included presentation of the data could be condensed. Namely, considering the absence of any trends in most aspects analyzed, and regarding the prevalence for class-2-error in these multiple tests, I consider omitting this section altogether for the sake of conciseness. It is not necessary for the data paper and does not yield substantial information.



Concerning the data itself, the file structure is coherent and logical. Add section on data formats and conventions (e.g. used file formats, date format, separators, etc.) as a section to the manuscript and/or reference and supplement the readme file in the repository.

Given the potential value of the dataset also for hydrological and sediment modelling, the potential user would require additional data (e.g. radiation, geodata on soil and vegetation, etc.).

Where available, the authors would increase the impact of the dataset by adding these data (e.g. shape file of landuse, DEM, bathymetries) or at least pointing to third party data sources where such data could be obtained (e.g. nearest national meteo station).



The manuscript is well written. I indicated a few suggestions for conciseness and wording.

The included figures are useful, but require some reworking.



I recommend moderate revisions.

Please see details in annotated PDF.