Analysis of the streamflow extremes and long-term water balance  in the Liguria region of Italy using a cloud-permitting grid  spacing reanalysis dataset

Silvestro, Francesco; Parodi, Antonio; Campo, Lorenzo; Ferraris, Luca

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5403-2018

Articles | Volume 22, issue 10

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5403-2018

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5403-2018

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

Articles | Volume 22, issue 10

Research article

|

19 Oct 2018

Research article |

| 19 Oct 2018

Analysis of the streamflow extremes and long-term water balance in the Liguria region of Italy using a cloud-permitting grid spacing reanalysis dataset

Francesco Silvestro, Antonio Parodi, Lorenzo Campo, and Luca Ferraris

Download

Final revised paper (published on 19 Oct 2018)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 14 Aug 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review for hess-2017-339', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Sep 2017
- AC1: 'Response to reviewer 1', Francesco Silvestro, 24 Oct 2017
RC2: 'Review of hess-2017-339', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Oct 2017
- AC2: 'Response to reviewer 2', Francesco Silvestro, 24 Oct 2017

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (14 Nov 2017) by Patricia Saco

AR by Francesco Silvestro on behalf of the Authors (22 Dec 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (05 Jan 2018) by Patricia Saco

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (06 Feb 2018)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (05 Apr 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The article presents a potentially useful study, but there are many aspects that still need to be improved before considering publication. Though the revised version has been partially improved, there are still portions of the methodology and text that are not clear. The organization is messy, forcing the reader to move back and forth across sections.
Some of this issues and concerns were included in the previous reviews and unfortunately the authors were not able to address them in the revised manuscript.
For example, reviewer 1 of the previous round suggested moving the EXPRESS-Hydro reanalysis section to the introduction, as the text in lines 1 to 19 in page 7 are not part of the methodology. This was not done, and this section is still unclearly linked to the methodology (and this text belongs to the introduction). He also suggested, replacing the Pieri et al., data by the Express-Hydro reanalysis everywhere in the text. This was not done everywhere, see for example line 9 in page 7, and later line 15 of page 17.... This is just one example of a problem, repeated in other aspects, that makes the manuscript (and work) very difficult to follow.
There are constant references to later sections which again, make the manuscript difficult to follow.
Page 13 (and 14): What do you mean by “it was possible to calibrate the model for 11 sections?” how are “sections” defined? Which are these sections? Please clarify. Please comment on the range of variability of the parameter values, particularly as you the use a mean value for the ungagged basins (“sections?”). It might be worth doing a sensitivity analysis (using the range of calibrated parameters) to investigate the possible impact of using mean values.
Page 17, section 3.1 is unclear. Are you referring to the EXPRESS-HYDRO reanalysis data?. Please, be clear in the introduction about this dataset, and refer here (in the same terms) to your new results. Is the bias correction considered here? (it seems so, from line 14 in page 18, but please mention it at the beginning).
The authors should consider a thorough English revision, possibly by a colleague with good English skills to improve readability and English usage. Please note also that the manuscript is full of one-sentence paragraphs, which makes the paper hard to read.
In short, the lack of clarity is compromising the delivery of the message of the paper.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (21 Apr 2018) by Patricia Saco

AR by Francesco Silvestro on behalf of the Authors (25 May 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (16 Jun 2018) by Patricia Saco

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (28 Jun 2018)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (24 Jul 2018)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (09 Aug 2018) by Patricia Saco

AR by Lorena Grabowski on behalf of the Authors (29 Aug 2018) Author's response

ED: Publish as is (14 Sep 2018) by Patricia Saco

Short summary

In this work we adopted a high-resolution meteorological reanalysis dataset together with a rainfall downscaling algorithm and a rainfall bias correction technique in order to produce input for a hydrological model; the resulting modeling chain allows the production of long time series of distributed hydrological variables in the Liguria region of Italy, located in the northern part of Italy. The aim is to evaluate how such a kind of modeling chain is able to reproduce the hydrology in an area.