Intra-catchment variability of surface saturation – insights from physically based simulations in comparison with biweekly  thermal infrared image observations

Glaser, Barbara; Antonelli, Marta; Hopp, Luisa; Klaus, Julian

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-1393-2020

Articles | Volume 24, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-1393-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-1393-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 24, issue 3

Research article

|

26 Mar 2020

Research article |

| 26 Mar 2020

Intra-catchment variability of surface saturation – insights from physically based simulations in comparison with biweekly thermal infrared image observations

Barbara Glaser, Marta Antonelli, Luisa Hopp, and Julian Klaus

Download

Final revised paper (published on 26 Mar 2020)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 17 May 2019)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'moderate revisions', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Jun 2019
- AC1: 'Response to Referee #1', Barbara Glaser, 01 Jul 2019
RC2: 'Review suggestion for Glaser et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Jul 2019
- AC2: 'Response to Referee #2', Barbara Glaser, 16 Jul 2019
RC3: 'Reviewer 3 comments', Anonymous Referee #3, 30 Jul 2019
- AC3: 'Response to Referee #3', Barbara Glaser, 12 Aug 2019

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (12 Aug 2019) by Nunzio Romano

AR by Barbara Glaser on behalf of the Authors (29 Nov 2019)

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (16 Dec 2019) by Nunzio Romano

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (05 Jan 2020)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (21 Jan 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The manuscript has been significantly improved. I only have five remaining comments, and include some suggestions to further improve the clarity of the manuscript and some minor comments and suggestions in the annotated pdf.

1. The wording regarding the exfiltration of groundwater in microtopographic depressions could be clearer. Is there really only exfiltration in these centimeter to meter scale depressions (and thus not the surrounding areas) or is there exfiltration in a larger area but only sufficient accumulation and ponding in these depressions for the surface to be considered saturated?

2. Please comment on the reasonableness of the daily time step for precipitation (and ET) for analysing spatial patterns in surface saturation and how this may have affected your results and interpretations. I recall from other papers that the streamflow response in this catchment can be fairly quick. Does this reduce the maximum size of the saturated area and is this partly a reason for a lack of hysteresis?

3. There is a fair bit of discussion on the lack of hysteresis in the saturated area - discharge relationship. I agree that the authors show that there is no clear hysteresis on the seasonal scale. However, there may be hysteresis on the event time scale. This is not clear for the observations because the photos weren't taken during events but could be analysed for the model results. I suggest that either the authors weaken their statements on a lack of hysteresis and mention more clearly that they focus on hysteresis at the seasonal (not event) time scale or that they actually look at the model results for individual events and check if there is hysteresis at the event time scale or not. It could be useful to add the simulation results for all time steps in a light shading in the background of figure 6 to show that the selected times are representative.

4. The abstract and conclusion could focus a bit more on what was learned from the modeling regarding the saturated area dynamics and its relation to discharge or the flow pathways that couldn't have been inferred from the field data alone.

5. Overall, the discussion (particularly sections 5.1 and 5.4) could focus a bit more on the broader message and/or implications of this study for understanding runoff generation mechanisms in other catchments. Now these sections tend to be very specific for the modeling done in this study or interpretation for runoff mechanisms in this study catchment.

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (21 Jan 2020) by Nunzio Romano

AR by Barbara Glaser on behalf of the Authors (14 Feb 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (18 Feb 2020) by Nunzio Romano

AR by Barbara Glaser on behalf of the Authors (19 Feb 2020) Manuscript

Short summary

The inundation of flood-prone areas can have crucial impacts on runoff generation and water quality. We investigate the variation of flooding in space and time along a small stream with long-term observations and numerical simulations. We demonstrate that the main reason for the flooding is the exfiltration of groundwater into local topographic depressions. However, only interplay with further influencing factors can explain all of the variability of the observed flooding patterns and dynamics.