I really liked reading this paper. The analyses are well thought out and compelling. I think this paper would benefit from a brief overview of the current biogeography/vegetation in the Study Area section. Most of my feedback is regarding the Discussion section and essentially boils down to ‘describe the proxy evidence’. Throughout the discussion, the authors keep referencing proxy data, but there is no actual discussion of what that data is. I noted below that they do well with this in lines 556-560 (when they stated that the changes in sedimentology were what suggested the gradual drier conditions), they just need to do it throughout section 5.3. Finally, the paper begins with this idea that large scale climate features have local impacts, and I think the authors should return to that in the conclusion with some brief commentary about how this work is furthering our understanding of local climate, which could have implications on local populations in the future. I also make a few notes about a few minor changes in the figures.

This article aims to reconstruct past hydrological regimes and the evolution of the Southern Westerly Wind (SWW) belt since the Last Glacial Maximum, based on hydrogen isotope ratios of leaf-wax n-alkanes in marine sediments between 33°S and 36°S. Past variations in the SWWs (latitudinal shifts, intensity, timing) remain a subject of debate, making this study highly relevant to the scientific community. Equally important is its examination of SWW–South Pacific High (SPH) interactions and their links to tropical dynamics.

The manuscript is interesting and well-structured. While the methodology is not entirely novel, it is noteworthy in that it has not previously been applied to this region of the southwest coast of South America for these purposes. The results are thoroughly analyzed, and the interpretations are convincing.

One aspect that I found slightly confusing was the frequent reference to previously published data and/or databases, such as those by Läuchli et al. (2025; note: this reference is incomplete in the reference list) and Gaviria-Lugo et al. (2023a, b). While this does not affect the overall quality of the work, clearer integration of these sources would improve the manuscript’s readability.

Minor comments

L39: Clarify what is meant by “modern components” of the SWW and the ITCZ.

L158: The text states the SWW are centered at 50°S, but this is not reflected in Figure 2.

L214: “Approximately 50 g of fine hemipelagic sediments were sampled.” Is 50 g correct?

L230: Briefly describe the two scenarios considered.

L235: Provide a short explanation of the methodology used by Gaviria-Lugo et al. (2023a).

L272: Add the ‰ symbol after “-8.4.”

L278–279: The first two sentences could be removed without loss of clarity.

L300–302: The description beginning “In the first scenario…” belongs in the methodology section.