Predicting discharge capacity of vegetated compound channels: uncertainty and identifiability of one-dimensional process-based models

Kiczko, Adam; Västilä, Kaisa; Kozioł, Adam; Kubrak, Janusz; Kubrak, Elżbieta; Krukowski, Marcin

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4135-2020

Articles | Volume 24, issue 8

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4135-2020

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4135-2020

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

Articles | Volume 24, issue 8

Research article

|

25 Aug 2020

Research article |

| 25 Aug 2020

Predicting discharge capacity of vegetated compound channels: uncertainty and identifiability of one-dimensional process-based models

Adam Kiczko, Kaisa Västilä, Adam Kozioł, Janusz Kubrak, Elżbieta Kubrak, and Marcin Krukowski

Download

Final revised paper (published on 25 Aug 2020)
Preprint (discussion started on 02 Jan 2020)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review Comments', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Feb 2020
- AC1: 'Response to the Referee #1', Adam Kiczko, 26 Mar 2020
RC2: 'Review comments', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Feb 2020
- AC2: 'Response to the Referee #2', Adam Kiczko, 26 Mar 2020
RC3: 'Review comments', Anonymous Referee #3, 24 Feb 2020
- AC3: 'Response to the Referee #3', Adam Kiczko, 26 Mar 2020

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (31 Mar 2020) by Insa Neuweiler

AR by Adam Kiczko on behalf of the Authors (12 May 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (16 May 2020) by Insa Neuweiler

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (22 May 2020)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (28 May 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I was happy to receive the revised version of this manuscript. My major concerns of the previous manuscript were adequately summarised and answered by the authors response. I want to complement the authors for their revised introduction (although technical improvements are in order, see below), in particular the four numbered points. All questions are relevant, well stated and invite further reading.

My only real remaining concern that exceeds technicalities, is that I would have liked to have those questions more directly answered in the conclusions. For example, the last sentence of the abstract and question number four are not answered in the conclusions. One might imagine a reader, made enthusiastic by these 4 questions, readily skipping to the conclusion for the answer, only to find 8 conclusions to different questions. However, I would leave it to the authors to consider this advice.

Specific & technical comments:

Line numbers refer to 'hess-2019-635-manuscript-version3.pdf'

The authors introduce numerical convergence in line 611. I would like the authors to make explicit what they mean by this convergence. The authors state multiple times that the Pasche method has a complex numerical nature - which may lead to instabilities, yet did not before address a lack of convergence. Perhaps a small note in the methodology may address this.

L 78: 'The obtained in the field values' check sentence

L 79: "representing usually a vegetation class", switch 'usually' and 'representing'

L80-81: make explicit what you mean by 'it' ('generalisation of...?')

L82: is 'should' the correct word here? Perhaps 'instead of representing physical quantities, they now reflect...'. I think the ideal is that our equations are somewhat related to physical quantities, but indeed, the waters get mudied.

L724: 'the best' - I'm not sure what the authors mean by 'the best uncertainty estimates'. Narrower?

L795: "unreal" Perhaps 'unrealistic?'

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (15 Jun 2020)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (21 Jun 2020) by Insa Neuweiler

AR by Anna Wenzel on behalf of the Authors (03 Jul 2020) Author's response

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (14 Jul 2020) by Insa Neuweiler

AR by Adam Kiczko on behalf of the Authors (20 Jul 2020) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

The study compares the uncertainty of discharge curves for vegetated channels, calculated using several methods, including the simplest ones, based on the Manning formula and advanced approaches, providing a detailed physical representation of the channel flow processes. Parameters of each method were identified for the same data sets. The outcomes of the study include the widths of confidence intervals, showing which method was the most successful in explaining observations.