Dear Joszsef, thank you for your valuable hint. The results of your study are very interesting. We were not aware of it, but included it now in our paper. In our study, irrigation increases the monthly precipitation in all months except for August and September (Fig. 12). However, we simulated only one year. To be able to make clearer statements about precipitation-irrigation feedback a longer experiment and convection-permitting resolution are needed. Convective precipitation genesis depends on multiple, interconnected factors such as atmospheric stability, moisture content, temperature profiles, and wind patterns. The climatology and surrounding meteorological conditions are further influencing factors, which drive the develpment of irrigation effects. Our region is characterized by a Mediterranean climate as well as showing influences from the Alps, whereas Nebraska shows a continental climate. These regional differences are also shown eg. in Thierry et al. 2017, Lobell et. al 2009.

We added your study in our Discussion in the manuscript (line 570):  “In our study irrigation effects on precipitation remain unclear and cannot reproduce the findings in observation studies showing a regional annual decrease of precipitation as found in Szilagyi and Franz (2020). However, irrigation effects on precipitation are indirect and influenced by many interconnected factors such as atmospheric stability, specific humidity, temperature, and wind patterns. These make a comparison difficult. To find clearer patterns of irrigation effects on precipitation, a longer experiment is necessary. Further, in our study, the convective precipitation is parameterized and the generating processes are not resolved. Therefore, we recommend using convection-permitting resolution for analyzing precipitation-irrigation feedback.”

Dear Juan A. Añel, see our answers to your 2 main critical points below.

CEC: Also, although, in general, you have done good work with the repositories for data, you fail to do it with the data from http://www.scia.isprambiente.it/. This webpage is not a long-term, trustable repository. Moreover, you provide little information about how to get the exact data you have used, as you only include a generic link to the home page. Therefore, we have to ask you to deposit the data that you have used in one of the acceptable repositories listed in our policy.

AC: Thank you for pointing out this weakness in our study. We improved the description of the download of the observational data from the SCIA website and added the used observation data to our repository along with a copyright statement on zenodo after receiving the permission of ISPRA (who hosts the SCIA data).

In the revised manuscript, we added in line 601: "The scripts used to produce the results presented in this paper are archived on Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7889384), as is the simulation data together with the observational data from SCIA (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7867328) after we received their permission. Originally, we downloaded the observation data from http://www.scia.isprambiente.it/ using the API http://193.206.192.214/servertsutm/serietemporali accessed on 14/10/2022. The code can be cited as Asmus and Buntemeyer (2023), the data of this study can be cited as Asmus (2023).”

CEC: You do not provide a repository for the code of REMO2020-iMOVE, and you state that for it, an email address should be contacted for it. We can not accept this. You must publish the code of the new developments to the model and all the model code in one of the suitable repositories. Despite the request by the handling topical editor regarding this issue, and according to our records in the system, you did not address it.

AC: We provided the REMO2020-iMOVE code with the initial submission on request of the handling topic editor. Therefore, the code was accessible to the reviewers and fulfilled the GMD Code & Data policy for restricted codes. The code is restricted due to reasons beyond us authors, therefore, we cannot publish it. This issue was solved in a private discussion on 28/08/2023.

Thank you for your positive feedback and your valuable comments. We carefully reviewed our manuscript and addressed all of your points in the attachment. Please see also the renewed figures in the attachment. 

Dear Hisashi Sato, thank you for taking over the review and its positive feedback, as well as for the coordination of the whole process. We included all suggestions and corrections pointed out by Referree#1. Please see the attachments in our response to Referee#1.