Next Article in Journal
Effects of Afforestation on Soil Bulk Density and pH in the Loess Plateau, China
Next Article in Special Issue
Flash Flood Simulation for Ungauged Catchments Based on the Distributed Hydrological Model
Previous Article in Journal
Groundwater Contamination, Subsurface Processes, and Remediation Methods: Overview of the Special Issue of Water on Groundwater Contamination and Remediation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Soil Erosion Modelling and Risk Assessment in Data Scarce Rift Valley Lake Regions, Ethiopia
Article Menu
Issue 12 (December) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Use of WRF-Hydro over the Northeast of the US to Estimate Water Budget Tendencies in Small Watersheds

Reviewer 1: Marco Delle Rose
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2018, 10(12), 1709; https://doi.org/10.3390/w10121709
Received: 31 October 2018 / Revised: 12 November 2018 / Accepted: 14 November 2018 / Published: 22 November 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Catchment Modelling)

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

Three are the aims of the paper: (1) model performance evaluation according to traditional standards; (2) hydrology dataset providing; (3) water budget tendencies. They are performed on the northeastern U.S. from available models and datasets. The algorithm of the method appears sufficiently plausible.

As regards the performance of the model, about 17% of the stations resulted "unsatisfactory" according to NSE, RSR and PBias. However, the tendencies of 3-day peak flow, 7-day low flow and 5-day means for the model results and streamflow gauges agree sufficiently.

The text of chapter 4.3. shows some lacks. I suggest a more exhaustive description. Figure 10 is mentioned only with regard to SWE while no references are used for the other six components of the budget.

minor comments:

[105 line]: is the sentence "We evaluate the performance or the model" correct? It does not seem.

[206-207 lines] please cite "Nash Sutcliffe Efficiency" in the text.

[345 line] please cite "Snow Water Equivalent" in the text.

The caption of the Figure 10 should be better organized.

[398 line] ... "We we"... please delete one.

[417 line] delete  "Snow Water Equivalent" in the text (see above).

[441-443 lines] please define "Author Contributions"

[444 line] "Acknowledgments:" is empty

[445-451 lines] template sentences are present.


Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

 

We appreciate the time you took to review our work and for the comments you made. We have answered all your comments (please see attached document) and changed the document accordingly. 


With all the best,

Marcelo Somos-Valenzuela

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf


Reviewer 2 Report

This study proposes to evaluate the performance of the Noah-MP model within the WRF-hydro model for the northeast of the US in providing a consistent hydrology dataset and evaluating changes in the water cycle components that are driven by streamflow changes.

I think there are few issues to address. I recommend publication contingent on revisions as described in the following.

 You can find my comments on the pdf file of manuscript in the form of tracks.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf


Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2, 

We appreciate the time you took to review our work and for the comments you made. We have answered all your comments (please see attached document) and changed the document accordingly. 


With all the best,

Marcelo Somos-Valenzuela

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Water EISSN 2073-4441 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top