GRACE storage-runoff hystereses reveal the dynamics of regional watersheds

Sproles, E. A.; Leibowitz, S. G.; Reager, J. T.; Wigington, P. J. Jr; Famiglietti, J. S.; Patil, S. D.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3253-2015

Articles | Volume 19, issue 7

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3253-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3253-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 19, issue 7

Research article

|

28 Jul 2015

Research article |

| 28 Jul 2015

GRACE storage-runoff hystereses reveal the dynamics of regional watersheds

E. A. Sproles, S. G. Leibowitz, J. T. Reager, P. J. Wigington Jr, J. S. Famiglietti, and S. D. Patil

Download

Final revised paper (published on 28 Jul 2015)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 30 Oct 2014)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C5509: 'GRACE storage-streamflow hystereses reveal the dynamics of regional watersheds', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Dec 2014
RC C5647: 'hess-2014-418 (Referee) - Referee Comment Request', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Dec 2014
AC C6532: 'Authors' responses to comments from Referees and Revised manuscript', Eric Sproles, 20 Feb 2015

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (10 Mar 2015) by Junguo Liu

AR by Eric Sproles on behalf of the Authors (11 Mar 2015) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (18 Mar 2015) by Junguo Liu

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (27 Apr 2015)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

This manuscript has been improved tremendously since its original version. The authors have taken considerable effort to address all comments and argue their position well. I consider this manuscript suitable for publication after addressing following comments

Specific comments

In the abstract two additional new results are claimed:
1. Proof of soil water storage threshold before recharge or peak runoff occurs
2. Subsurface water hysteresis resemble the R-S relationship of soil matrix
For the former a detailed explanation in section 4.3 is needed. For the latter only a brief explanation is given in the caption of Fig.a-f, please provide a sound explanation in the text as well.

240: Is it the standard Nash-Sutcliffe with the long-term mean in the denominator? If yes, please cite them. If not please note the formula.

246: How are the data sets combined?

435-452: (not really clear)
• Please better elaborate why GWSA is nearly constant from June to October and with a negative slope from Oct to March (Fig3c)
• Could you please describe the role of SM (and Res ??) in more detail, as they are the main difference between TWSAsub and GWSA ?
• What is the role of GW extraction vrs possible recharge from snow melt?
• The simultaneous display of TWSA and GWSA vrs time in one figure for each catchment might help to highlight the different dynamic behavior.

488–493: The results for the Snake River end at 120 mm, the threshold is at 100mm. so is this really promising for dry areas?

492 The Forecast must be poor for TWSA < 100mm
Is NS calculated for forecast for all TWSA values or only above the threshold?

Fig.2 Check stdev and variance units in graphs, NS values do not fit to table 1

Minor comments

For the tick between S and R, please use – in word: ctrl+minus sign and in latex: two hyphen in a row

Please be consistent with the italicizing the index TWSA_month , sometimes month appears as italic version and sometimes not. In principle an index which does not receive number should not be italicized. Same for R_season.

45: capacity to understand -> understanding

92–94: rephrase the sentence. It is not clear.

122: 50-60% -> 50–60%

131: provide a reference for this statement.

258: 2004-2012 & 2005-2011 -> 2004–2012 & 2005–2011

399: remove helps

416, 428,454 and …: hyphen is not a negative sign please use negative sign in math form.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (29 Apr 2015)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

General comments:

The predictive ability demonstrated in this paper of the GRACE signal to predict seasonal streamflow in the large Columbia River basin is promising and indicates a potential for the use of GRACE results to enhance the reliability of seasonal water supply predictions.

The revised paper now includes analysis of total subsurface water storage by subtracting snow and reservoir storage from the total water storage. The almost linear relationship between subsurface moisture storage and streamflow for the Upper Columbia basin is interesting and could be further explored in comparison with the more complex result for the Snake River basin.

The paper still retains the GLDAS-derived estimates of soil moisture (SM) to depth of 2 m to estimate the groundwater storage changes, GWSA. However this estimate of soil moisture has little meaning for such a large heterogeneous basin and cannot be adequately separated from groundwater storage. The SM and GWSA calculations based on this soil moisture calculation should be simply deleted, along with all discussion and figures pertaining to them.

There is much talk in the paper about hysteretic relationships between storage and streamflow, but this goes little beyond the obvious, such as the delayed response of streamflow to snow accumulation, which dominates the hysteresis and is hardly a new finding. The paper would be better off with no mention of “Hysteresis”, except perhaps in passing as a minor note.

The paper could be shortened and strengthened by concentrating on the clear results, especially the prediction of later-summer streamflow based on the March and April TWSA, and the relationship between total subsurface storage and streamflow.

Specific comments

Technical comments:

L 103. This mention of a linear relationship between runoff and liquid storage is intriguing, especially since this paper finds the same relationship for the Upper Columbia. The finding that the Snake River has a more complex relationship, with runoff partly uncoupled from subsurface storage, could be further explored.

L 137 What is meant by “expansive aquifer storage”. Does the aquifer expand (surely not!)? This needs a much better discussion based on actual papers describing the hydrogeology of the area.

L 485-503. This discussion about groundwater levels and the timing of pumping tests is just not relevant. Local groundwater authorities are perfectly well aware of how groundwater levels change in their region. Advice on this matter based on the highly dubious estimate of watershed-wide GWSA would be merely irritating to them. Suggestion: delete this portion.

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (05 May 2015) by Junguo Liu

AR by Eric Sproles on behalf of the Authors (18 Jun 2015) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (06 Jul 2015) by Junguo Liu

AR by Eric Sproles on behalf of the Authors (08 Jul 2015)

Short summary

The paper demonstrates how data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) can be used to describe the relationship between water stored at the regional scale and stream flow. Additionally, we employ GRACE as a regional-scale indicator to successfully predict stream flow later in the water year. Our work focuses on the Columbia River Basin (North America), but is widely applicable across the globe, and could prove to be particularly useful in regions with limited hydrological data.