|Review of “The CAMELS-CL dataset: catchment attributes and meteorology for large sample studies – Chile dataset”, by Alvarez-Garreton et al.|
The manuscript entitled “The CAMELS-CL dataset: catchment attributes and meteorology for large sample studies – Chile dataset” developed by Alvarez-Garreton C. et al. presents a dataset with daily resolution of several climatic variables. This is of high interest in order to develop climate research, especially in a country as Chile, particularly vulnerable to climate change effects and where water management is a priority for policymakers.
My first thought when I received and accepted to review was, coinciding with the editor, that this manuscript fit perfectly in Earth System Science Data journal, but this is a matter that has to be solved by the editorial team.
Nevertheless, the manuscript shows high hydrological interest (mainly for the inclusion of the human intervention on catchments) and has developed a great improvement since its original version following the other referees comments.
Despite this, I would like the authors to answer some final concerns.
Maybe the first concern about this manuscript is that I miss a more detailed explanation about how the authors deal with the fact that the precipitation datasets show projections that display large uncertainty in high and dry areas, as those located in the Far and Near North.
Another point is a matter of scale, but that affects directly the most strong point of this work to this reviewer’s eyes: how have been considered Andean peatlands in this work? They play a key role as water reservoirs and their presence modify significantly the water flow, but their dimensions make the “invisible” to many regional to global products (Tachikawa et al. 2011). They’re also very sensitive to annual climate variability, which makes me feel that the period used in Zhao et al. (2016) is not enough consider these ecosystems in the model. Finally, they have been traditionally managed by human activity, and their influence in the groundwater flow of high elevated is determinant. Do the authors have considered this?
- for the whole manuscript, author’s guidelines in Physical dimensions and units, point h, says: “The symbol for the decimal marker is the dot. To facilitate reading, numbers may be divided in groups of three using a thin space (e.g. 12 345.6), starting with the ten-thousand digit. Neither dots nor commas are permitted as group separators”. Please, correct.
- p.2 l. 31: I don’t really see the point here to talk about the main results of the research and, next, start talking about the study area. Why not directly in the “Study area” section? I would delete these sentences.
- p. 3 l. 15: I miss a reference at the end of the enumeration, concretely for “climate change impacts on the hydrology of the CONUS”.
- p. 4 l. 13: strictly, Kottek et al. (2006) did not applied the Köppen’s but the Köppen-Geiger’s classification. See Sarricolea P., Herrera-Ossandon M.J., Meseguer-Ruiz O. (2017) Climatic Regionalisation of Continental Chile. Journal of Maps 13(2): 66-73. DOI: 10.1080/17445647.2016.1259592 for further details.
- p. 8 l. 12: is it possible to know some information about the multivariate regression models? Mainly mean square error and residuals…
- p. 10 l. 25: there is a repeated “6”, it should be “Figure 6b” nor “Figure 66b”.
- p. 13 l. 10 and l. 13: in English, months start with a capital letter, so it should be written “DJF” and “JJA” when referring to summer and winter.
- p. 14 l. 30: I think there is a missing letter: “It should be noted…”.
- p. 19 l. 5: it should be “quartile” instead of “quantile”.
- p. 20 l. 25: missing word: “that can be addressed”.