Importance of the informative content in the study area when regionalising rainfall-runoff model parameters: the role of nested catchments and gauging station density

Neri, Mattia; Parajka, Juraj; Toth, Elena

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5149-2020

Articles | Volume 24, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5149-2020

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5149-2020

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

Articles | Volume 24, issue 11

Research article

|

06 Nov 2020

Research article |

| 06 Nov 2020

Importance of the informative content in the study area when regionalising rainfall-runoff model parameters: the role of nested catchments and gauging station density

Mattia Neri, Juraj Parajka, and Elena Toth

Download

Final revised paper (published on 06 Nov 2020)
Preprint (discussion started on 26 Feb 2020)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'The title, abstract, introduction and discussion should be substantially revised', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Apr 2020
- AC1: 'Response to reviewer 1', Mattia Neri, 28 May 2020
RC2: 'Comments to hess-2020-38', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Apr 2020
- AC2: 'Response to reviewer 2', Mattia Neri, 28 May 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) (06 Jun 2020) by Fuqiang Tian

AR by Mattia Neri on behalf of the Authors (25 Jun 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (02 Jul 2020) by Fuqiang Tian

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (30 Jul 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I appreciate the authors’ work on addressing my concerns. The paper is now much improved. However, the English writing is still poor. I would suggest the senior co-authors to play some efforts to refine/smooth the writing in a revised version. The authors used the symbol “:” very often to construct rather long sentences based on unclear logics, which however is very unfriendly to the readers. Beyond that, grammar errors as well as sloppy long sentences make the texts hard to follow. Some examples are listed below, but not limited to this. Further smoothed writing by an English native speaker would be suggested.
Line 50, activities; line 13, why is the “:” used here?; line 20, “consists in”- is on the effects of; line 21, “taking into account”-based on; line 22, “secondly”- second/moreover; line 25, “the ‘output-averaging’…data-rich regions”. Please rephrase; line 31, ways; line 61, “result”- be obtained; line 65, “for”- of; line 98, delete “for generalization purposes”; line 126, delete “reported and”; line 130, please specify how did you calculate the stream network density, is it by the ratio between the channel area and the catchment area? lines 135-137, please rephrase; line 141, patterns; line 143, Table 1. Catchment characteristics used in the parameter regionalisation approaches; line 151, “consists in”- consists of; line 155, based on the sub-catchment areas; line 158, “routine”- module, same for the follows; line 170, by dividing; line 175, Table 2 describes the physical basis and the value ranges of the calibrated parameters; line 202, “elevation layer”- elevation band; line 207, provide inputs for the GR6J; line 208, delete “accounting”; line 209, routing procedure of the module includes two flow components; line 212, fed by; lines 214-215, please rephrase; line 216, reports briefly, for the sake of brevity; line 218, and their value ranges; line 224, using the algorithm of Dynamically Dimensioned Search; line 230, is r the Pearson correlation coefficient or the linear correlation coefficient? Please have a double check; line 239, demonstrated how? Line 349, “complete”- entire; line 280, demonstrating how? Lines 282-285, please rephrase; line 287, 1:n; line 322, one of the main purposes; line 364, as mentioned above; line 382, obtained by calibrating; line 406, Results show that in all the four cases; line 420, is reduced; lines 441-442, please rephrase that; line 455, performance is lower in smaller catchments is of course a clear relation; line 475, delete “the”; lines 476-479, please rephrase; line 483, 43% of that have; line 525, delete “as”; lines 529-531, please rephrase; line 531, bottom panel; line 540, as already mentioned; line 570, it is also true with respective to the variability of; line 573, increases with decreasing; line 574, but are evenly distributed over the country; line 584, consists of; line 595, delete “large”; line 608, this also holds true; line 621, reduces from; line 629, impacts; line 631, effects of data-richness and informative content on the accuracy of various methods; line 634, “extendable”- transferable; lines 637-640, please rephrase; lines 646-653, please rephrase; lines 656-662, please rephrase; line 664, structures; line 675, “closeness”- proximity; lines 695-698, please rephrase; line 798, is more noticeable; line 712, as in Austria; lines 715-720, please rephrase;

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (11 Aug 2020)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (30 Aug 2020) by Fuqiang Tian

AR by Mattia Neri on behalf of the Authors (06 Sep 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (18 Sep 2020) by Fuqiang Tian

Short summary

One of the most informative ways to gain information on ungauged river sections is through the implementation of a rainfall-runoff model, exploiting the information collected in gauged catchments in the study area. This study analyses how the performances of different model regionalisation approaches are influenced by the informative content of the available regional data set, in order to identify the methods that are more suitable for the data availability in the region.