Dear Dr. Schittek and co-authors,

Thank you for carefully responding one by one to the comments of the two referees. And thank you to the referees for going into the details of the paper and providing knowledgeable and constructive reviews.

Your author responses seem to me to address most of the referee comments in a satisfactory way. I also notice that you have revised the manuscript significantly to take into account referee suggestions. I therefore encourage you to submit the revised manuscript to CP. Given the substantial nature of the reviews and requested changes I will then solicit another round of reviews, from the original referees or from new ones if necessary.

Below I provide you with some guidance on a few points:

- I am concerned by one of your answers, which is in response to Ref#1’s request to add better statistical scrutiny to your comparison of the peat record and Northern hemisphere temperature history. This comparison seems to be a core scientific aspect of your manuscript. Therefore, I find postponing statistical scrutiny to a potential follow-up paper not satisfactory. I don’t think that adding sound statistics would “extend the range of the paper significantly”, at least not with regards to manuscript length or scope (although it admittedly requires some additional effort). I therefore encourage you to consider adding some statistical analysis. In any case, I will ask the referees specifically about their opinion on this aspect and whether the paper has enough scientific substance without at least some basic discussion on statistical significance.

- With respect to the title I tend to agree with Ref#2 that a modification may be appropriate (although to me not a reason for rejection). If you want to keep the reference to climate in the title, especially given the nature of the Special Issue and the name of the journal, then the slight twist towards hydrologic response of … to climate changes.

- The additional map that illustrates the climatic context of the region is probably more appropriate for inclusion directly into the paper rather than just in the supplement, in case you are still unsure where to put it.

I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript and will manage the review and decision process then more swiftly than in this last round.

With kind regards
Thorsten Kiefer

Dear Dr. Schittek and co-authors,

Thank you for having thoroughly revised the manuscript following the main suggestions of the referees and considering my own concerns. I think the increased statistical scrutiny in correlating records, the addition of a figure and some tweaking of the title and main statements have considerably improved the manuscript. I am therefore happy to accept it for publication in Climate of the Past as a contribution to the "Central and South America" special issue. Congratulations!

I would like to specifically also thank the referees for providing thorough and constructive reports.

Kind regards,
Thorsten Kiefer