|The authors are to be congratulated on their revision, which has greatly improved the paper. I was very pleased to see that their analyses now include ecozones, and the paper is much stronger for it.|
The figures are very attractive.
Unfortunately, the results are undermined by the writing.
I am providing some suggestions, but the paper would benefit from a thorough editing to tighten the writing, and
to remove the many grammatical errors, poor word choices, and excess verbiage.
The paper is riddled with cliches:
“to name a few”
“We recognize that”
“Considering the available data”
“Looking however at the drainage basins”
“First and foremost”
“sets the scene”
These are unnecessary, and colloquial. Please delete them.
The terms “higher”, and “lower”, unless you are talking about elevations, should be “greater” or “larger” and “smaller”.
These are things, not points in time.
I think you mean “the times of the first human settlements”
This word is used far too often, and incorrectly.
I think that “indicate” is what you mean.
I think that “others” is more useful
Disagreement in number. Should be “are”
This is rather confusing in a scientific paper, particularly when you refer to “time and space”!
It’s also a bit vague.
What is relative to what?
“some of which with”
Replace “with” by “have”
I’m not sure what this means
I think that “creates” would be better.
“in a way”
Would advise inserting “such” after “in”
L 142, eq. 2A
It would be nice to have a verbal description of the objective function. Does it have a reference?
I was confused in this section.
The meaning of the baseline isn’t really explained very well.
“sum of memberships in each timeframe is one”
I suggest that you use “1” as “one” could be part of a phrase, like
“one of the ....”
“one or more clusters”.
This is confusing. Shouldn’t it be “other clusters”?
How it this method more transparent than others?
“is tied up with attribution”
Could be shortened to “attributed”
“Black and red lines”
Please add a leading “The”
“expected annual hydrographs”
What are these – how are the values expected? Please explain.
L 236, 3 Case study and data
A lot of the following information could be summarised in a table.
“With the total catchment area equivalent to”
Replace with “With a total catchment area ”
“roll coast to coast to coast and during their journey”
Unnecessary, please delete
“largest water bodies”
Not a very good description. Perhaps you could say some of the largest lakes other than the Great Lakes.
Should be preceded by “The”
“While drainage basins”
“While” is usually used to mean “at the same time as”.
I would suggest using “Although”
“in which the streamflow is traced from headwaters to oceans”
Unnecessary, please delete
“patch of terrestrial land”
Unless we are talking about other planets, “land” implies “terrestrial”
Suggest replacement with
Misspelled – should be “distinct”
“only major Canadian region outside the Rockies”
Really? Isn’t this contradicted by the existence of every other ecozone?
“glacial-fed or lake-dominated streams”
This would be a good place to add a statement on the effect of storage to the slow responses of these streams.
“other processes such as fill and spill”
Agreed. However the process should probably be explained for readers not familiar with it.
This isn’t the right word in this context, as it refers to an emotional state. I would use “member of”
Should be “fewer”
Not a good word to use as its meaning is unclear in this context.
Looks like the fraction to me
“second cell from right” – I would say “left hand cell”
“first cell from the right” – I would say “right hand cell”
L 450 Figure 9
I couldn’t tell what the sizes of the squares mean – are they a function of some value?
If not, it would make the colour differences more visible if the squares were the same size.
I would say “selecting”
“due to the insufficiency”
“not significant changes”
I may have missed this – where was the significance test?
What are Dimension 1 and 2? I know that they are referred to in line 489, but it would be nice
to see an explanation.
L 519 - 5.2 Validation in unseen streams
I think that “unseen” is a bit confusing. Perhaps you could refer to the out of sample streams.
“because the majority of annual streamflow volume is contributed from mountainous headwaters outside of Prairies”
This is true of the large rivers, as well the smaller streams you examine in the extreme western portion of the ecozone (such as the Waterton River near Waterton Park and Belly River near Mountain View), however it is not true of the other prairie streams that you feature.
“fact that large proportion of the land does not contribute into the streamflow”
This needs a citation. Also, it is not true for some basins in the region, and is not always true for the remainder, as the contributing fractions of these basins vary over time.
Another issue is that many Prairie streams only have seasonal records, which can mess up analyses requiring entire years of records.
“Waterton River near Waterton Park (S69) and Belly River near Mountain View (S70)”
Since you are referencing the streams in Figure 12 by their WSC gauge IDs, you should also list the IDs here
“are sorted from the east to west”
I would use “ordered” rather than “sorted”.
“a fully algorithmic framework”
I don’t understand what this term means
Finally, I was disappointed to see that all of the analyses were done using a closed-source language.
This is particularly troubling because the analyses include significance tests, where the value of a
calculated statistic is compared to a fixed threshold (i.e. p = 0.05), resulting in acceptance or
rejection of a null hypothesis. A small error in the statistic can therefore result in a very large effect, and we can
have no understanding of how the statistic was calculated. I would encourage the authors to
use open-source languages in the future for their analyses.