the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A novel method for increasing water-yields, pine forests of the Northern Gulf of Mexico, USA
Abstract. With a burgeoning world population that is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050, 30 % more than today, there is an urgent need to harness available water resources to support regions across the world. This study introduces a new method to identify, prioritize, and select areas for pine basal area reduction to maximize water yields in pine forests along the Northern Gulf of Mexico, USA. The method, demonstrated in the Apalachicola Region of Northwest Florida, an area covered by dense vegetation and pine plantation forests, has experienced freshwater loss due to increased upstream water demand, climate change, and past forest management practices. Potential initial water-yield gains were: 1) 469 m3 d−1 if all pine basal areas were reduced from current to a maximum of 18 m2 ha−1, and 53,400 m3 d−1 if pine basal areas were reduced from current to a maximum of 7 m2 ha−1 for the Apalachicola Region. The method identifies watersheds mainly along the Apalachicola and other rivers and near the Gulf coast that have the greatest potential to increase water yields. Increasing forest water yields translates to increased freshwater availability and improved forest and soil health, water quality, and ecosystem function, services, and resilience, as well as socioeconomic outcomes for communities and people who rely on ecotourism and fisheries for their livelihoods. This method will empower forest managers to focus scarce resources in targeted areas to maximize water-resource benefits per resource investment. Although demonstrated in the Apalachicola Region, the method is easily transferable throughout other pine forests of the Northern Gulf Coast Region. This scientifically sound method is repeatable, scalable, and easily upgraded and adapted as newer, higher resolution datasets become available and relationships between forest metrics, evapotranspiration, and water yields are improved.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(3006 KB)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2021-175', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Jul 2021
This manuscript outlines a method for prioritizing areas for forest thinning to increase water yields. The area of interest is the northern Gulf Coast of Florida, a region that has seen the consequences of severe drought in recent decades.
While this is an important topic, and I would be interested in seeing this method developed and implemented further, I cannot recommend this manuscript for publication in HESS. The overall quality of the manuscript is poor, and neither the content nor the presentation of the manuscript meet the high standards of the journal.
First, I am not sure this is a really a new method or simply a case-study applying concepts presented previously in Cohen 2018. In the latter case, the novelty of the approach diminishes, and the manuscript then becomes a simple case study (which is not unimportant, but would need to be presented differently).
Second, this manuscript would need a thorough rewrite. Suggesting individual edits at this point would be exhausting, but some general issues I will note include the following:
- Abstract mentions new method several times but never remotely articulates what it is.
- There are many grammatical errors including errors in tense and subject-verb agreement.
- Paragraphs often cover a multitude of topics (some relevant and some not) which are not united by a topic sentence.
- While the above structural flaws are a concern, my biggest issue is that parts of the manuscript, especially in the introduction, shared a considerable amount of language from previously published products. While these products are cited in the text, the similarity of the text suggests a lack of originality and/or poor synthesis of ideas and may in some cases cross the line into plagiarism.
Therefore, I recommend that this manuscript be rejected in its current form. I do think the content shows promise for publication in a different outlet once all of the above issues are carefully and critically addressed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-175-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2021-175', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Jul 2021
The goal of the study to study the likely effects of restoring longleaf pine forests from current slash pine forests on water yield. The authors adopted a rather simplistic approach (necessarily) for a large area. The novelty of the work is merging general relationships between forest water use and forest structure (basal area and LAI). The research addresses an important questions and had important implication to forest management.
However, I raise concerns of the research methods. The annual water yield model is not validated for the study region for baseline. A preliminary test of the model performance with local USGS gaging station watershed is necessary to give some confidence to apply to the study region. Applying a model to new place requires regiorous model evaluation.I was surprised about the mean LAI values are less than 1.0 for dense slash pine forests. Does the LAI incldue understories? Would the relationship between BA and LAI for the trees or all vegetation? Water table depth is of course extremely dynamic in time and space. It is unclear how the water tale data are derived. These are important information for a hydrogy paper.
It is unclear why water yield can be negative for an averaged condition. This suggests the water yield has issues when applying to a HUC scale or a pixel. Water yield should be set to zero if is calculated as negative.
Minor comments
The Introduction section is rather long, not all are relevant to the focus of the study.
Mis-citation:
"Annual water yields, subject to change on from intra-annual precipitation variability, are a conservative process and generally
shows little variation over time if vegetation and precipitation are relatively stable (Oishi et al., 2010)." Water yield is not conservative. That paper states that ET is conservative, not varying a lot from year to year.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-175-RC2
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2021-175', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Jul 2021
This manuscript outlines a method for prioritizing areas for forest thinning to increase water yields. The area of interest is the northern Gulf Coast of Florida, a region that has seen the consequences of severe drought in recent decades.
While this is an important topic, and I would be interested in seeing this method developed and implemented further, I cannot recommend this manuscript for publication in HESS. The overall quality of the manuscript is poor, and neither the content nor the presentation of the manuscript meet the high standards of the journal.
First, I am not sure this is a really a new method or simply a case-study applying concepts presented previously in Cohen 2018. In the latter case, the novelty of the approach diminishes, and the manuscript then becomes a simple case study (which is not unimportant, but would need to be presented differently).
Second, this manuscript would need a thorough rewrite. Suggesting individual edits at this point would be exhausting, but some general issues I will note include the following:
- Abstract mentions new method several times but never remotely articulates what it is.
- There are many grammatical errors including errors in tense and subject-verb agreement.
- Paragraphs often cover a multitude of topics (some relevant and some not) which are not united by a topic sentence.
- While the above structural flaws are a concern, my biggest issue is that parts of the manuscript, especially in the introduction, shared a considerable amount of language from previously published products. While these products are cited in the text, the similarity of the text suggests a lack of originality and/or poor synthesis of ideas and may in some cases cross the line into plagiarism.
Therefore, I recommend that this manuscript be rejected in its current form. I do think the content shows promise for publication in a different outlet once all of the above issues are carefully and critically addressed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-175-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2021-175', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Jul 2021
The goal of the study to study the likely effects of restoring longleaf pine forests from current slash pine forests on water yield. The authors adopted a rather simplistic approach (necessarily) for a large area. The novelty of the work is merging general relationships between forest water use and forest structure (basal area and LAI). The research addresses an important questions and had important implication to forest management.
However, I raise concerns of the research methods. The annual water yield model is not validated for the study region for baseline. A preliminary test of the model performance with local USGS gaging station watershed is necessary to give some confidence to apply to the study region. Applying a model to new place requires regiorous model evaluation.I was surprised about the mean LAI values are less than 1.0 for dense slash pine forests. Does the LAI incldue understories? Would the relationship between BA and LAI for the trees or all vegetation? Water table depth is of course extremely dynamic in time and space. It is unclear how the water tale data are derived. These are important information for a hydrogy paper.
It is unclear why water yield can be negative for an averaged condition. This suggests the water yield has issues when applying to a HUC scale or a pixel. Water yield should be set to zero if is calculated as negative.
Minor comments
The Introduction section is rather long, not all are relevant to the focus of the study.
Mis-citation:
"Annual water yields, subject to change on from intra-annual precipitation variability, are a conservative process and generally
shows little variation over time if vegetation and precipitation are relatively stable (Oishi et al., 2010)." Water yield is not conservative. That paper states that ET is conservative, not varying a lot from year to year.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-175-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
848 | 355 | 34 | 1,237 | 41 | 36 |
- HTML: 848
- PDF: 355
- XML: 34
- Total: 1,237
- BibTeX: 41
- EndNote: 36
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1