Entire joint response (as requested by the journal):

We thank the reviewer for the constructive assessment and suggestions for improvement of our manuscript. We appreciate the positive evaluation and agree with most points raised and have revised the text accordingly. The changes were implemented to the best of our ability to improve the clarity and overall quality of the manuscript based on the reviewer’s suggestions. Below we provide detailed responses to each comment.

General comment

What do the Authors think about using this multi-dataset in a predictive effort? Or creating a “crisis monitoring unit” to analyze the dataset rapidly during forecasted extreme events?

Response

We thank the reviewer for this forward-looking suggestion. This is indeed a highly relevant application with strong potential value for the coastal community. We agree that integrating the multi-dataset framework into a predictive or pre-event response system would significantly enhance preparedness for extreme weather events. We are currently in the final phase of publishing a high-resolution model for the entire Adriatic Sea, and this concept could naturally take shape within that framework in the future. We appreciate the reviewer for raising this important idea.

Technical Corrections:Comment (Abstract Line 20)

"Please describe where Emilia–Romagna is (not everybody might know). Maybe add 'see Fig. 2' in the text? Or, better, if Fig. 3 becomes Fig. 1, then highlight the region in this Figure?"

Response:

We agree and have now included a short geographical indication of Emilia–Romagna in the abstract which reads now: “The first freshening event in early summer 2023 was linked to consecutive heavy rainfall episodes, including Storm Minerva, which triggered catastrophic flooding across the Emilia-Romagna region in northern Italy.”

Comment (Line 27)

"Replace ‘summer-time’ with ‘summertime’."

Response: Corrected.

Comment (Line 51)

"Replace ‘Among those’ with ‘Among these’."

Response: Revised as suggested.

Comment (Line 58)

"Replace ‘several smaller’ with ‘several small’."

Response: Corrected.

Comment (Line 59)

"Replace ‘nutrients-rich’ with ‘nutrient-rich’."

Response: Corrected based on the suggestion.

Comment (Line 61)

"Replace ‘while the plume’ with ‘while the Po plume’ or ‘while the river plumes’."

Response:  Updated to “while the Po plume” for clarity.

Comment (Line 70)

"Replace ‘data near-real time’ with ‘near-real-time data’."

Response: Corrected.

Comment (Line 71)

"Replace ‘rabidity’ with ‘rapidity’."

Response: Replaced as indicated.

Comment (Line 89)

"Replace ‘Senigallie’ with ‘Senigallia’."

Response:  Corrected.

Comment (Figure 3b)

"The notes on the plots are unreadable even at 200%; please enlarge the figure or the writing."

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The figure and associated labels have been enlarged and reformatted to ensure full readability.

Comment (Figure organisation) and Comment (Line 106)

"Since it is the first figure cited, why is it placed later and not named Fig. 1? Figures should be reorganized." 

"If Fig. 3 is relocated, replace the reference with (Figure 3) or (Figure 1)."

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding figure order. Our intention was to begin the Results section by presenting the time series (Figure 1), as this provides a clear and direct depiction of the freshening events before introducing the atmospheric drivers and river inputs shown in subsequent figures. The current sequence follows the narrative structure of the manuscript: (1) description of the oceanographic response, (2) the precipitation events that triggered it, (3) the associated river discharge patterns, and (4) the resulting biogeochemical impacts.

We do indeed refer to Figure 3 earlier in the text to aid reader understanding by showing river locations, but this reference is only intended as supporting contextual information. If preferred, we can remove the optional parenthetical remark (“see Figure 3 for river mouth locations and characteristic circulation patterns”) to avoid confusion.

Comment (Line 113)

This sentence could be a bit more detailed (even though you cite product refs): e.g. "and the estimated affected region, i.e. via the width of the coastal current turbid band (Fig. 3), determined from satellite observations". 

Response:

We expanded this sentence accordingly to clarify how the affected region was estimated from satellite observations. It now reads “This method was based on in-situ salinity data from the Fortunae buoy (product ref. 1; Table 1) and the estimated area of the affected region, , derived from satellite SST and ocean-colour observations (product refs. 5 and 6; Table 1) capturing the cold and turbid coastal plume.”

Comment (Line 134)

Line 134. "These included daily fields...". Could you pls include the spatial resolution too (in brackets, maybe), please? This way the reader has "right away" a more complete grip on the basic specs of the data/model used, while further details can be acquired in the cited ancillary documentation.

Response:

The spatial resolution of the satellite and model products has been added in parentheses and reads as follows: “These included daily fields of sea surface temperature (SST; 0.01° × 0.01°), chlorophyll-a concentration (Chl-a, 1km x 1 km), light attenuation coefficient at 490 nm (KD490; 1km x 1 km), surface salinity (SSS; 0.042° × 0.042°), and horizontal current components (u and v; 0.042° × 0.042°).”

Comment (Line 145)

"Replace ‘while the model outputs’ with ‘while model output’."

Response: Replaced as indicated.

Comment (Line 159 / Table 1)

Line 159 (Table 1). Maybe it could be useful to add a word in column "Product ID & type" for the Copernicus products, better describing them, e.g. "ERA5, numerical models - precipitation", "CEMS EFAS, numerical models - ocean circulation", etc.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The structure of Table 1 follows the standard format required by the Ocean State Report, which specifies the layout for product identification. For this reason, we maintained the prescribed format without adding additional descriptors in the “Product ID & type” column. However, the nature of each product (e.g., numerical model, satellite observation, in-situ data) is indicated within the table and further detailed in the accompanying documentation references.

Results Comment (Fig. 1)

3.1 Surface freshening Fig. 1. Why do you use similar colors in each panel? In this way it is difficult to distinguish between curves (also because the fig. is quite small). Would it not be better to use contrasting colors (e.g. blue and red) for all curve pairs?

Response:

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this issue. We chose the colour scheme based on standard physical interpretation (blue for temperature, red for salinity, and orange for density) to ensure intuitive readability across the manuscript. To improve visual clarity, we have now increased the contrast between the curves and enhanced the font size and figure resolution. 

Comment (Line 208)

"During this period, the Po River remained well below the climatological average discharge". This is interesting. Can you comment on why? Maybe the Po was already so low that rainfall didn't manage to raise it above average? 

Response:

Indeed, despite these extreme rainfall episodes, the Po River remained well below its climatological average discharge and this behaviour is consistent with the fact that the most intense precipitation was concentrated over the eastern Apennine catchments rather than over the Po basin itself, which had also previously experienced prolonged drought conditions. As a result, local rivers such as the Lamone, Savio, and Reno exceeded historical flood levels, while the Po showed only a limited hydrological response.  

The text now reads: “During this period, the Po River remained well below the climatological average discharge, with values around 2000 m³/s, as the most intense rainfall did not affect its main basin, whereas local rivers like the Lamone, Savio, and Reno exceeded historical flood levels (Figure 3c).” 

Comment (Line 228)

"Replace ‘Marche region’ with ‘Marche region, just south of Emilia–Romagna’."

Response: Replaced as indicated.

Comment (Line 229)

"Replace ‘Discharges increase’ with a grammatically correct alternative."

Response: Revised to: “An increase in the discharge of the Adige and Po was reported”

Comment (Line 233)

"Replace ‘Parma Apennines’ with ‘inland, in the Parma Apennines’."

Response:  Replaced as indicated. 

Comment (Line 259)

"Replace ‘provide spatial’ with ‘provide a spatial’."

Response: Corrected.

Comment (Fig. 4)

Fig. 4. Same as comment on Fig. 1 curve colors... e.g. never mind the "psychological affinity" of the curve color to the color of the parameter when visually observed at sea (e.g. green for chl, brown for turbidity, etc.). 

Response:

We agree with the reviewer’s observation on the readability. The colour scheme in Figure 4 was originally chosen to follow standard physical interpretation (e.g., green for chlorophyll-a and brown for turbidity) to support intuitive reading across the manuscript. However, we agree that the similarity between some curves reduced readability. To improve visual clarity, we have now increased the contrast between the plotted lines and enhanced both the font size and figure resolution. These adjustments ensure that the figure is more easily interpretable while maintaining a physically meaningful colour scheme.

Comment (Line 360)

"Replace ‘Mediterranean is particularly vulnerable’ with ‘Mediterranean, it is particularly vulnerable’."

Response:  Corrected as suggested.

Comment (Line 375)

"Replace ‘Such integration’ with ‘Such an integration’."

Response: Corrected as suggested.

Comment (Appendix Line 403)

"Replace ‘waves characteristic’ with ‘wave characteristics’."

Response: Corrected.

Comment (Appendix Line 404)

"Replace ‘informations are’ with ‘information is’."

Response: Replaced as indicated.

Comment (Line 431)

"Replace ‘information are available under’ with ‘information is available in’."

Response: Corrected as indicated.

Comment (Line 492)

"Replace ‘Assuming x and y are’ with ‘Assuming that x and y are’."

Response: Revised accordingly.

We thank the reviewer for the careful and constructive assessment of our manuscript. We agree with the points raised and have revised the text accordingly. The changes were implemented to the best of our ability to improve the clarity and overall quality of the manuscript based on the reviewer’s suggestions. Below we provide detailed responses to each comment.

Comment 1 – Control volume and freshwater rate (Section 2.3 & Appendix A2)

Response:

We agree with the reviewer’s interpretation. The 1 m alongshore width was chosen to express the required freshwater input per metre, providing an easily interpretable quantity while ensuring dimensional consistency in the mass-balance calculation. This approach yields of course only an indicative value that reflects the local freshwater signal at the buoy site. It is not intended to represent the total freshwater discharge along the broader coastline, nor to imply uniform contributions from the various river systems in the region. We acknowledge that this required clearer explanation. We have now added clarifying remarks in Section 2.3 and Appendix A2, and we have adjusted the abstract accordingly to avoid potential misinterpretation.

Comment 2 – Dissolved oxygen supersaturation (Lines 301–302)

Response:

We agree with the reviewer. It was an oversight on our part, as we originally intended to include indicative %DO saturation values in the text. We have now added these values in parentheses to support the statement and improve clarity.

Comment 3 – Wave information

Response:

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. Wave information was removed in the final stage of shortening the manuscript, and the remaining references to wave parameters were inadvertently left in the text. These have now been removed to maintain consistency with the revised analysis.

Technical Corrections:

Comment (Line 24)

Suggested: "A key distinction between the two years was the marked recovery of Po River discharge in 2024 after a prolonged drought, which significantly amplified freshwater inputs."

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggested improvement. The sentence has been revised as recommended.

Comment (Line 69):

Suggested: "The need for coastal observations and monitoring efforts is increasingly recognized as essential for guiding policy and public safety needs."

Response: We agree with the proposed phrasing. The text has been updated accordingly.

Comment (Line 245):

"Figure 3: (a) Overview of (a) the study area…" → change to “Figure 3: (a) Overview of the study area…”

Response: This correction has been implemented.

Comment (Lines 281–282):

“… (Figure2b-e), an extreme turbidity increase (~100 NTU average) was recorded for …”.

Reviewer notes that values appear closer to ~70–75 NTU based on Fig. 4.

Response: We thank the reviewer for noticing this discrepancy. The turbidity values were rechecked, and the correct indicative range is indeed ~70 NTU. The text has been corrected accordingly.

Comment (Line 370):

Suggested: "These events compromise water quality, threaten aquaculture viability, and negatively impact tourism, posing socio-ecological risks."

Response: We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion, and the sentence has been revised as recommended.