Peer review report 2 on Modelling hydrological losses for varying rainfall and moisture conditions in South Australian Catchments

Peer review report 2 on Modelling hydrological losses for varying rainfall and moisture conditions in South Australian Catchments

Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 3S (2015) 15–16 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies journal home...

97KB Sizes 7 Downloads 61 Views

Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 3S (2015) 15–16

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejrh

Peer review report 2 on Modelling hydrological losses for varying rainfall and moisture conditions in South Australian Catchments

Original Submission Recommendation Minor revision. Comments to the author This is a resubmission of a previous rejected manuscript. The manuscript has been improved. However, some previously mentioned issues could be addressed better. (1) The authors’ reasons for not using the regression are two: (1) some mathematical criteria for linear regression is violated, and (2) regression does not give accurate results. Most (if not all) hydrological models are approximation tools, they should not be treated strictly from the mathematical point of view. Otherwise, I would argue that TR-D nomograph shown in Figure 9 is not valid as points marked in the same colour (which have similar (same) IL values) do not strictly appear in the same region. The second point sounds more reasonable, but the authors have not provided quantitative results showing how the validation results from the regression based IL estimation compare to those based on the nomographs. If the two give similar results, the regression based method should be the first choice because it is easier to apply than the nomograph one. (2) CL has a unit of mm/hr, it is probably more associated with rainfall intensity than TR, AW, and D. Should it be good to include rainfall intensity as one predictor variable in the stepwise regression? (3) The primary aim is to improve design flood estimation. Readers would expect to see how the proposed method improves the estimation (peak streamflow or total event discharge). I would redo Figure 11 to plot this result, rather than on the loss estimation. (4) In Table 5, PL has a unit of mm/hr, this is not consistent with Eq. (6). (5) Figure captions can be substantially improved. Reviewer 1 made this point in the pervious review. But I think there are still room to improve. Take Figure 9 for an example, the caption is “TR-D nomograph”. Readers may wonder what the “regions” in the graph mean, what the TR and D units are, from how many catchments and how many events these points were derived, and so on.

DOI of the original article:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.04.005. 2214-5818/$ – see front matter http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.04.007

16

Peer review report / Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 3S (2015) 15–16

First Revision Recommendation Accept Comments to the author My previous comments have been addressed properly. Huade Guan Senior Lecturer Flinders University School of the Environment Bedford Park Adelaide, 5001 Australia

Available online 16 May 2015