Continental hydrosystem modelling: the concept of nested stream&ndash;aquifer interfaces

Flipo, N.; Mouhri, A.; Labarthe, B.; Biancamaria, S.; Rivière, A.; Weill, P.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-3121-2014

Articles | Volume 18, issue 8

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-3121-2014

© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-3121-2014

© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 18, issue 8

Review article

|

21 Aug 2014

Review article |

| 21 Aug 2014

Continental hydrosystem modelling: the concept of nested stream–aquifer interfaces

N. Flipo, A. Mouhri, B. Labarthe, S. Biancamaria, A. Rivière, and P. Weill

Download

Final revised paper (published on 21 Aug 2014)
Preprint (discussion started on 14 Jan 2014)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C22: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Jan 2014
- AC C110: 'Interactive Reply to Reviewer 1', Nicolas Flipo, 11 Feb 2014
RC C324: 'Review on Flipo et al', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Mar 2014
- AC C339: 'Interactive reply', Nicolas Flipo, 10 Mar 2014

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (19 Mar 2014) by Ying Fan

AR by Nicolas Flipo on behalf of the Authors (16 May 2014) Author's response

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (21 May 2014) by Ying Fan

RR by Nir Krakauer (21 May 2014)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (22 Jun 2014)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I have reviewed a previous version of the paper (reviewer 2). The paper has greatly improved and I did very much appreciate that the authors have put in a lot of effort to consider the reviewers comments. My key points of criticism for the previous version have been addressed (with the exception of the Partington papers—they are all about spatially distributed systems, the authors might have missed this point). Chapter 2.3.2 might benefit from briefly talking about streambed topography, see Käser et al 2014 and the references therein. He discusses how to consider and mesh streambed topography for the same scales as discussed in this paper.
Apart from that I have only one minor comment related to the references for remote sensing. It would be nice to highlight some papers on page 16, line 1: “…….and spatially from the sub-kilometer (Brunner, 2008; Munch 2013) to continental scale (García-García 2011)”
Munch, Z., Conrad, J.E., Gibson, L.A., Palmer, A.R., Hughes, D. Satellite earth observation as a tool to conceptualize hydrogeological fluxes in the Sandveld, South Africa (2013) Hydrogeology Journal, 21 (5), pp. 1053-1070.

García-García, David, Caroline C. Ummenhofer, and Victor Zlotnicki. "Australian water mass variations from GRACE data linked to Indo-Pacific climate variability." Remote Sensing of Environment 115.9 (2011): 2175-2183.

Käser, D., Graf, T., Cochand, F., McLaren, R., Therrien, R. and Brunner, P. (2014), Channel Representation in Physically Based Models Coupling Groundwater and Surface Water: Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them. Groundwater. doi: 10.1111/gwat.12143

Brunner, P., H. T. Li, W. Kinzelbach, W. P. Li, and X. G. Dong (2008), Extracting phreatic evaporation from remotely sensed maps of evapotranspiration, Water Resour. Res., 44, W08428, doi:10.1029/2007WR006063.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (23 Jun 2014) by Ying Fan

AR by Anna Wenzel on behalf of the Authors (30 Jun 2014) Author's response

ED: Publish as is (01 Jul 2014) by Ying Fan