The Impact of a Hydroelectric Power Plant on a Regional Climate in Portugal
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors;
I read the manuscript and have some concerns and suggestions for the authors. Some points below:
- I believe the main assumption by the authors should be better described and supported. This is about to compare the climate on the hydropower plant influence and the “station control” (Vila Real). I recognize that to prove the influence of a reservoir over the regional climate is tough study, however, there are some gaps that the authors need to cover on this. Such as: only one station was used as control (Vila Real); to a better comparison, more stations are indispensable. This assumption is quite dangerous because this station can be under local influences, and these were not filtered by the authors. To overcome this, I suggest to previous study the climate of Vila Real station using at least 20-30 years of data and carefully analyzing if it is under change due to several reasons. And these changes should be also considered when the stations near the reservoir are considered. Including, this analyzes can help with the Results presented and their discussion, which is blur in terms of the conclusions. Neither the basic coordinates were described nor the elevation. Why does this station represent the regional climate? The main conclusion is obvious since a reservoir is implemented and more statistical is necessary to a more robust analyze and conclusion.
- Figure 1 should be improved. From figure 1a, it is interesting to give a look for the studied region and then to locate the Vila Real station.
- I suggest describing overall the basic climate elements of the region and the main climate drivers (features), using normal climatology or the datasets as long as 20 years.
- Validation of collected data: homogeneity here is about the series gap and outliers or is regarding the non-parametric test for homogeneity? This should be applied as well.
- Results and discussion
- The first paragraph would be better located in Material and Methods, like the suggestion I made.
- HRES: it wasn’t described in Material and Methods nor what is purpose. Clarify it.
- For discussion: what was more significant minimum or maximum temperatures? I believe is in the maximum according to your graphics. Why? Maybe the anomalies calculation trend had been influenced by climate change in Vila Real station. You have a more detailed study of the climate in this station and to detect some trends in it and try to remove such trends, mainly those provoked by local changes in the landscape (urbanization for example). Because you are bringing this trend to the anomaly’s calculation.
- And about precipitation? I suggest implementing an evaluation of the frequency of heavy rainfall in the region before and after the reservoir’s filling. And did the bushfires in region reduced due to increase in humidity? I believe further discussions can be done aiming to become the study more suitable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment file with the response to the reviewer.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I have just a few comments, but one of them refers to methodology:
Section 1: please provide some information on whether there are other studies similar to yours regarding the climatic conditions in the study area as well as other research in that field in Portugal.
Section 2: this part is missing a clear explanation of the methodology with appropriate references.
Regards
Reviewer
Author Response
Please see the attachment file with the response to the reviewer.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors significantly improved the manuscript and most of concerns mine were responded and/or improved. I believe the paper can be published from now.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for your responses and changes incorporated into the manuscript. It looks much better now.
Regards
Reviewer
