The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper [1].
We have found an inadvertent error in the initial reservoir storage volume taken in the modeling work. This has had a knock-on effect on the simulation results presented in Table 6 and Figure 6 and Figure 7, along with the description of the results provided in the main text of our article [1]. We have therefore updated these, as described below.
The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused by these changes.
The authors wish to replace the old Table 6 shown in this paper [1]:
Table 6.
Volume (hm3) of water used and efficiency in satisfying the water demands.
Table 6.
Volume (hm3) of water used and efficiency in satisfying the water demands.
| Hydrological. | S-I: Using the 2018 GRB DMP | S-II: Using AQUAFOR (Mean Streamflow Forecast) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | UWSD | IWD | UWSD | IWD | ||||||||
| SW | GW | Total | Deficit | SW | Deficit | SW | GW | Total | Deficit | SW | Deficit | |
| 2004/05 | 35.46 | 2.06 | 37.52 | 0 | 25.90 | 0 | 37.52 | 0 | 37.52 | 0 | 25.90 | 0 |
| 2005/06 | 25.14 | 12.38 | 37.52 | 0 | 9.16 | 16.74 | 22.14 | 15.38 | 37.52 | 0 | 25.90 | 0 |
| 2006/07 | 24.14 | 13.38 | 37.52 | 0 | 19.21 | 6.70 | 25.27 | 12.26 | 37.52 | 0 | 23.67 | 2.23 |
| 2007/08 | 25.14 | 12.38 | 37.52 | 0 | 10.28 | 15.63 | 17.14 | 20.39 | 37.52 | 0 | 14.74 | 11.16 |
| 2008/09 | 25.14 | 12.38 | 37.52 | 0 | 25.90 | 0 | 37.52 | 0 | 37.52 | 0 | 25.90 | 0 |
| Total | 135.02 | 52.60 | 187.62 | 0 | 90.45 | 39.06 | 139.59 | 48.03 | 187.62 | 0 | 116.13 | 13.39 |
| Mean | 27.00 | 10.52 | 37.52 | 0 | 18.09 | 7.81 30% * | 27.92 | 9.61 | 37.52 | 0 | 23.23 | 2.68 10% * |
| Comparison B/A (%) | 3% | −9% | 0% | 28% | −66% | |||||||
* Mean annual water deficit for the IWD in relation to the total annual IWD of 25.904 hm3 as established in the Guadalquivir RBMP 2015–2021. IWD: irrigation water demand; UWSD: urban water supply-demand.
with the following corrected Table 6:
Table 6.
Volume (hm3) of water used and efficiency in satisfying the water demands.
Table 6.
Volume (hm3) of water used and efficiency in satisfying the water demands.
| Hydrological | S-I: Using the 2018 GRB DMP | S-II: Using AQUAFOR (Mean Streamflow Forecast) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | UWSD | IWD | UWSD | IWD | ||||||||
| SW | GW | Total | Deficit | SW | Deficit | SW | GW | Total | Deficit | SW | Deficit | |
| 2004/05 | 35.46 | 2.06 | 37.52 | 0 | 25.90 | 0.00 | 37.52 | 0.00 | 37.52 | 0 | 25.90 | 0.00 |
| 2005/06 | 25.14 | 12.38 | 37.52 | 0 | 9.16 | 16.74 | 22.14 | 15.38 | 37.52 | 0 | 21.44 | 4.46 |
| 2006/07 | 23.14 | 14.38 | 37.52 | 0 | 14.88 | 11.02 | 19.14 | 18.39 | 37.52 | 0 | 14.74 | 11.16 |
| 2007/08 | 19.14 | 18.39 | 37.52 | 0 | 11.39 | 14.51 | 18.14 | 19.39 | 37.52 | 0 | 14.74 | 11.16 |
| 2008/09 | 26.14 | 11.38 | 37.52 | 0 | 25.90 | 0.00 | 37.52 | 0.00 | 37.52 | 0 | 25.90 | 0.00 |
| Total | 129.02 | 58.60 | 187.62 | 0 | 87.25 | 42.27 | 134.46 | 53.16 | 187.62 | 0 | 102.73 | 26.79 |
| Mean | 25.80 | 11.72 | 37.52 | 0 | 17.45 | 8.45 (33% *) | 26.89 | 10.63 | 37.52 | 0 | 20.55 | 5.36 (21%) * |
| Comparison B/A (%) | 4% | −9% | 0% | 18% | −37% | |||||||
* Mean annual water deficit for the IWD in relation to the total annual IWD of 25.904 hm3 as established in the Guadalquivir RBMP 2015–2021. IWD: irrigation water demand; UWSD: urban water supply-demand.
On page 27, the second paragraph shown in this paper [1]: “Indeed, the water deficits of the system are considerably reduced (up to 66% for the IWD), and the use of strategic GW resources is minimized (up to 9%). There is no water deficit for the UWSD in the whole drought period for S-I and S-II. The IWD benefits from a mean annual water deficit of 10% for S-II in comparison with 30% for S-I” should be replaced with the following corrected paragraph: “Indeed, the water deficits of the system are considerably reduced (up to 37% for the IWD), and the use of strategic GW resources is minimized (up to 9%). There is no water deficit for the UWSD in the whole drought period for S-I and S-II. The IWD benefits from a mean annual water deficit of 21% for S-II in comparison with 33% for S-I”.
The authors wish to replace the old Figure 6 shown in this paper [1]:
Figure 6.
2018 GRB DMP: Measures taken in April (a,c,e,g,i) and evaluation of the real situation made in October (b,d,f,h,j).
with the following corrected Figure 6:
Figure 6.
2018 GRB DMP: Measures taken in April (a,c,e,g,i) and evaluation of the real situation made in October (b,d,f,h,j).
The authors wish to replace the old Figure 7 shown in this paper [1]:
Figure 7.
Using streamflow forecast models (in this case, AQUAFOR): Measures taken in April (a,c,e,g,i) and evaluation of the real situation made in October (b,d,f,h,j).
with the following corrected Figure 7:
Figure 7.
Using streamflow forecast models (in this case, AQUAFOR): Measures taken in April (a,c,e,g,i) and evaluation of the real situation made in October (b,d,f,h,j).
On page 29, the fifth paragraph shown in this paper [1]: “Indeed, the water deficits of the system are considerably reduced (up to 66%), and the use of strategic GW resources is minimized (up to 9%)” should be replaced with the following corrected paragraph: “Indeed, the water deficits of the system are considerably reduced (up to 37%), and the use of strategic GW resources is minimized (up to 9%)”.
Reference
- Hervás-Gámez, C.; Delgado-Ramos, F. Are the Modern Drought Management Plans Modern Enough? The Guadalquivir River Basin Case in Spain. Water 2020, 12, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).