Including effects of watershed heterogeneity in the curve number method using variable initial abstraction

Santikari, Vijay P.; Murdoch, Lawrence C.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-4725-2018

Articles | Volume 22, issue 9

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-4725-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-4725-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 22, issue 9

Research article

|

10 Sep 2018

Research article |

| 10 Sep 2018

Including effects of watershed heterogeneity in the curve number method using variable initial abstraction

Vijay P. Santikari and Lawrence C. Murdoch

Download

Final revised paper (published on 10 Sep 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 08 Nov 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of "Including Effects of Watershed Heterogeneity in the Curve Number Method Using Variable Initial Abstraction"', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Dec 2017
- AC1: 'Response to Referee #1', Vijay Santikari, 15 Jan 2018
RC2: 'Referee comment on “Including Effects of Watershed Heterogeneity in the Curve Number Method Using Variable Initial Abstraction” by Vijay P. Santikari et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Jan 2018
- AC2: 'Response to Referee #2', Vijay Santikari, 19 Mar 2018

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (05 Apr 2018) by Thomas Kjeldsen

AR by Vijay Santikari on behalf of the Authors (21 Apr 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (26 Apr 2018) by Thomas Kjeldsen

AR by Vijay Santikari on behalf of the Authors (21 May 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (31 May 2018) by Thomas Kjeldsen

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (08 Jun 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I believe that the revised manuscript was substantially improved and the authors answered/addressed adequately almost all of the reviewers’ comments. The main weakness of the manuscript (i.e. strong reliance on a reference to an unpublished paper) was more or less addressed with the addition of a citation to the Ph.D. dissertation (Santikari, 2017), which is available online. I read the dissertation (at least partly) and it covers the issues raised by the reviewers, so, it is ok with me. However, the editor may finally suggest if it is allowed to add a citation to an unpublished paper or if only the citation to the Ph.D. dissertation should remain. Though, I believe that the objectives of this study (Page 2, lines 15-19) should be revised in order to also include the citation to the Ph.D. dissertation of Santikari, (2017).

Apart from the above, I have only two remaining minor comments.
1. Page 4, Line 9. “If a watershed has multiple land uses or soil types, typically, the CN is areally averaged.” I believe that it should be made clear that this happens but it is erroneous in order to avoid confusion to the readers on which is the typical method to estimate runoff in heterogeneous watersheds. Alternatively, this phrase can be removed. Also, I think that “spatially” is more correct than “areally”.
2. Page 5, Lines 4 -14. The definition of the various characterizations of the watersheds according to the relationship between P and CN is a key work presented by Hawkins (1993). Therefore, I believe that the citation of the study of D’Asaro and Grillone (2012) should be removed from this point. This citation was already added to the previous phrase indicating that many researchers have noticed this behavior. Please also check the syntax in lines 5-6 because it is confusing.

Conclusively, I believe that this manuscript is suitable for publication after very minor revisions.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (20 Jun 2018)

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (25 Jun 2018) by Thomas Kjeldsen

AR by Vijay Santikari on behalf of the Authors (02 Jul 2018) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

The curve number (CN) method is the most widely used approach for estimating runoff from rainfall. Despite its popularity, there is a conceptual flaw where CN varies with rainfall although it is assumed to be constant. In this paper, we describe theoretical analyses that show how this behavior is due to watershed heterogeneity, and we then provide simple modifications to the method to improve its runoff predictions. The findings will benefit hydrologists and watershed models that use CN method.