Comparing Bayesian and traditional end-member mixing approaches for hydrograph separation in a glacierized basin

He, Zhihua; Unger-Shayesteh, Katy; Vorogushyn, Sergiy; Weise, Stephan M.; Duethmann, Doris; Kalashnikova, Olga; Gafurov, Abror; Merz, Bruno

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-3289-2020

Articles | Volume 24, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-3289-2020

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-3289-2020

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

Articles | Volume 24, issue 6

Research article

|

29 Jun 2020

Research article |

| 29 Jun 2020

Comparing Bayesian and traditional end-member mixing approaches for hydrograph separation in a glacierized basin

Zhihua He, Katy Unger-Shayesteh, Sergiy Vorogushyn, Stephan M. Weise, Doris Duethmann, Olga Kalashnikova, Abror Gafurov, and Bruno Merz

Download

Final revised paper (published on 29 Jun 2020)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 26 Aug 2019)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of Comparing Bayesian and 1 traditional end-member mixing approaches for hydrograph separation in a glacierized basin', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Oct 2019
- AC1: 'Responses to reviewer 1', Zhihua He, 16 Nov 2019
RC2: 'Review of the manuscript ‘Comparing Bayesian and traditional end-member mixing approaches for hydrograph separation in a glacierized basin’ by He et al. (hess-2019-394)', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Oct 2019
- AC2: 'Responses to reviewer 2', Zhihua He, 16 Nov 2019
RC3: 'Review of the manuscript `Comparing Bayesian and traditional end-member mixing approaches for hydrograph separation in a glacierized basin´', Anonymous Referee #3, 10 Oct 2019
- AC3: 'Responses to reviewer 3', Zhihua He, 16 Nov 2019

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 Dec 2019) by Markus Weiler

AR by Zhihua He on behalf of the Authors (03 Jan 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (14 Jan 2020) by Markus Weiler

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (29 Feb 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Review of the revised manuscript ‘Comparing Bayesian and traditional end-member mixing approaches for hydrograph separation in a glacierized basin’ by He et al. (hess-2019-394)

General comment
In my opinion, the Authors have done a very good job in exhaustively addressing the reviewers’ indications and implementing them in the manuscripts. I have only a few minor comments before suggesting acceptance of this work.

Minor comments (referred to the ms with track-changes)
L625. “Tracers data” should be “Tracer data”.

L636. It’s not similar, Palmex basically manufactures Groening’s rainfall version. I suggest changing into “as in Groening et al., 2012”

L660. The mention on the memory effect is quite vague, please specify. See, for instance, Qu et al. (2019), Penna et al. (2012).

Qu, D, Tian, L, Zhao, H, Yao, P, Xu, B, Cui, J. Demonstration of a memory calibration method in water isotope measurement by laser spectroscopy. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2020; 34:e8689. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcm.8689

Penna D., Stenni B., Šanda M., Wrede S., Bogaard T.A., Michelini M., Fisher B.M.C., Gobbi A., Mantese N., Zuecco G., Borga M., Bonazza M., Sobotková M., Čejková B., Wassenaar L.I., 2012. Technical Note: Evaluation of between-sample memory effects in the analysis of d2H and d18O water samples measured by laser spectroscopes. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 16, 3925–3933, 2012.

L666-667. This sentence is too vague. Please, explain more in detail why the non-conservative nature of EC may have only small effects on the application of hydrograph separation at the catchment scale.

L669-670. I suggest changing into: “We used threshold values to identify abnormal values of δ18O and EC, defined as values located more than 5% away from the sample clusters.”

L725-727. Sorry, this explanation is still not clear to me, and I think it’s crucial for the methodological part of the paper. Please, try to clarify. Thanks.

L744. What does “generally” mean? Can you quantify this (eg, % of times)?

L1056. Report again what “small sample size” means/is here.

L1129-1130. Report again what “small sample size” means/is here.

L1134 and 1136. It’s not necessary to use the acronym “DJF”, it has been mentioned only a couple of times.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (13 Apr 2020) by Markus Weiler

AR by Zhihua He on behalf of the Authors (23 Apr 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (05 May 2020) by Markus Weiler

Short summary

Quantifying the seasonal contributions of the runoff components, including groundwater, snowmelt, glacier melt, and rainfall, to streamflow is highly necessary for understanding the dynamics of water resources in glacierized basins given the vulnerability of snow- and glacier-dominated environments to the current climate warming. Our study provides the first comparison of two end-member mixing approaches for hydrograph separation in glacierized basins.