Using hydrologic landscape classification and climatic time series to assess hydrologic vulnerability of the western U.S. to climate

Jones Jr., Chas E.; Leibowitz, Scott G.; Sawicz, Keith A.; Comeleo, Randy L.; Stratton, Laurel E.; Morefield, Philip E.; Weaver, Christopher P.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3179-2021

Articles | Volume 25, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3179-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3179-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 25, issue 6

Research article

|

11 Jun 2021

Research article |

| 11 Jun 2021

Using hydrologic landscape classification and climatic time series to assess hydrologic vulnerability of the western U.S. to climate

Chas E. Jones Jr., Scott G. Leibowitz, Keith A. Sawicz, Randy L. Comeleo, Laurel E. Stratton, Philip E. Morefield, and Christopher P. Weaver

Download

Final revised paper (published on 11 Jun 2021)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 23 Jan 2020)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

SC1: 'Relevant citation', Ryan Hill, 22 Mar 2020
- AC1: 'Re: Relevant citation', Chas Jones, 23 Mar 2020
RC1: 'Review of “Using hydrological landscape classification and climatic time series to assess hydrological vulnerability of the Western U.S to climate” By Jones et al., 2020', Shervan Gharari, 30 Mar 2020
- AC2: 'Author response to RC1', Chas Jones, 04 May 2020
RC2: 'Review of Jones et al (2020) MS', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Apr 2020
- AC3: 'Author response to RC2', Chas Jones, 04 May 2020

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (02 Jul 2020) by Patricia Saco

AR by Chas Jones on behalf of the Authors (01 Dec 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (17 Dec 2020) by Patricia Saco

RR by Jason Todd (29 Jan 2021)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors here should be commended for a marked improvement in this revised paper. The revised organization and structure helps guide the reader through the study better with a clearer sense of overall purpose and direction. I appreciate the thoughtful response to comments and the commitment made to addressing previous comments and concerns I had. I recommend acceptance of this paper with a few minor points that the authors may want to consider.

1) I'd recommend the authors re-read this paper a final time for grammar and sentence structure and minor edits. Overall the paper reads well, but there are a few places where a word seems missing. For example:
L49: I think the authors mean to add a "to" so it reads "and is related TO the threats of increased flooding.
L460: the sentence here ends with the verb "are". I'd revise so it doesn't end that way

2) L60-82. This paragraph reads a bit like a cascade of a literature review. Maybe edit this paragraph to highlight common trends or take home messages rather than Researcher X found this and Researcher Y found that. It provides good information, but could be synthesized better.

3) Section 2.2.1 and by relation 2.2.2. For all the other HL indices you include the relevant dataset used to characterize that variable whereas we dont find out about the climate datasets till later in section 2.3. Maybe at least reference that the datasets used to develop those indices will be discussed in a follow on section?

4) L272-275. Was there a comparison done as to the degree of match between the climate normals and the historical climate analyses for overlapping years? The addition of L266-271 adds valuable context, but there any comparison done to how the downscaled 4k resolution dataset ended up matching (or not matching) the 400m high resolution one?

5) L314-320. I appreciated the additional language and consistent reference to your vulnerability evaluation not being indicative of a direction of change but rather a 2 SD threshold in either direction. It make it much clearer. Based on Fig 5, it appears that precipitation and S' are particularly sensitive to going in either direction. Was their any evaluation done to discern those instances when it could go either direction? That seems as if it could point to less certainty in the results although it fits into your construct of a marked change of +/- 2 SD. Perhaps add a sentence or two as to implications of going in either direction?

6) L394. Maybe add (SWE) after snow accumulation so it's clear what the text is referring to in Table 4

7)L422. Maybe put S' at the end of this list so it's parallel with how the variables are shown in the Figure.

Tables/Figures
1) Table 2. You might consider making this an appendix or supplemental table. Maybe it'll take up less space in a published version, but in my print-out it currently covers three complete pages.

2) Table 4. Again likely just a formatting issue, but the percentages for 3 of the 5 indices are shown across two lines. This should be on a single line as the subsurface permeability column shows. For instance, climate column and temperature row says 70 (next line) %, should just be 70%

3) Figure 2. Panels B and C and the legend for Panel E is illegible in the printed-out version. Again, may be improved in a published version, but I'd increase font sizes so they can be seen. I don't think anything below the font size shown for the labels in Panel A will work. Maybe make the figure landscape to give yourself more space?

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (01 Mar 2021)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (17 Mar 2021) by Patricia Saco

AR by Chas Jones on behalf of the Authors (27 Mar 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (19 Apr 2021) by Patricia Saco

Short summary

Our research assesses the hydrologic vulnerability of the western U.S. to climate by classifying the landscape based on its physical and climatic characteristics and analyzing climate data. We also apply the approach to examine the vulnerabilities of case studies in the ski and wine industries. We show that the west and its ski areas are vulnerable to changes in snow, while vineyard vulnerability varies. This allows us to consider climatic impacts across landscapes, industries, and stakeholders.