Articles | Volume 29, issue 8
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2109-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluating the effects of topography and land use change on hydrological signatures: a comparative study of two adjacent watersheds
Download
- Final revised paper (published on 28 Apr 2025)
- Preprint (discussion started on 17 Jun 2024)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2024-136', Lele Shu, 28 Jul 2024
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Haifan Liu, 13 Aug 2024
-
RC2: 'hess-2024-136 Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Oct 2024
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Haifan Liu, 22 Oct 2024
Peer review completion
AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload
ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (14 Nov 2024) by Hilary McMillan
AR by Haifan Liu on behalf of the Authors (25 Dec 2024)
Author's response
Author's tracked changes
Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (20 Jan 2025) by Hilary McMillan
RR by Lele Shu (09 Feb 2025)
ED: Publish as is (11 Feb 2025) by Hilary McMillan
AR by Haifan Liu on behalf of the Authors (20 Feb 2025)
This paper explores the impacts of land use change and basin topography on hydrological processes using the integrated surface-subsurface hydrological model (ISSHM), the SHUD model. The study conducted model simulations and analyses within the Shenzhen-Hong Kong basin. The experimental design is comprehensive, the arguments are credible, the charts are clear, and the writing is readable. However, I have some concerns that could make this study even more comprehensive and reliable.
The authors explored the relationship between slope and several hydrological processes. I did not see the process of slope calculation; therefore, I am uncertain if the slope here refers to the slope calculated from the DEM in different zones or the slope calculated based on the triangular mesh of the SHUD model. Since the resolution of the triangles is lower than that of the DEM, I believe that the slope based on triangles better reflects the impact of slope on hydrological processes. According to lines 187-189, the three zones are divided based on elevation differences, but the average slope attribute within the three zones is not displayed or discussed. Therefore, the article needs to clarify the slope calculation method.
Based on the SHUD model, the authors analyzed the impact of slope on hydrological processes (subsurface). Local subsurface flow is usually affected by soil characteristics, especially hydraulic conductivity, and is also influenced by slope runoff (slope + accumulating area). Therefore, the groundwater level is higher in the flat areas around the river channel, leading to a larger subsurface flow.
The SHUD model outputs subsurface flow, which may include the flow (Q1, Q2, Q3) in three directions of the triangle (positive outward) and the sum/net flow in the three directions (Qs = Q1 + Q2 + Q3, or eleqsub = eleqsub1 + eleqsub2 + eleqsub3). Then, the water balance of the saturated zone of this unit should be dS = Q1 + Q2 + Q3. In the long-term trend, dS should be close to zero. Here, dS is equivalent to Qs (eleqsub). Therefore, subsurface flow should be the sum of positive flows or the sum of negative flows. If the authors directly use new-flow (Qs/eleqsub) in the calculation, it no longer conforms to the meaning of subsurface flow. For example, the flow rates of the three sides of a triangle are eleqsub1 = 200, eleqsub2 = 100, and eleqsub3 = -310, then eleqsub = 200 + 100 + (-310) = -10. It indicates that the unit gains 10 units of water. In this case, the flow rate at this unit should be 300 (200 + 100) or -310, but definitely not -10. Similarly, the calculation of surface runoff may have the same concerns. I suggest that the authors clarify the reading and processing of variables in the appendix or supplementary materials.
Parameter calibration is a very challenging task for any ISSHMs. Although your study uses manual parameter calibration, I strongly recommend that you share more calibration details/experiences so that others can learn from your work. For example, how were sensitive parameters determined? How were parameters adjusted to gradually approach the observed results? How was it determined that the current parameter set reached "optimal" or "usable" levels?
Although the authors have clarified the data sources of this study, I strongly recommend that the authors share the research data of this article (including model input files, model source code used to implement this study, and calibrated parameters) in an open database (such as Zenodo). Of course, you can desensitize or not share meteorological and hydrological data that are restricted by copyright or confidentiality clauses. Sharing this data can help other researchers replicate your work and further expand the impact of your work. This is just a suggestion.