Development and Application of an Interactive Coupling Rainfall-Runoff Model According to Soil Texture
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper has potential for interest in the subject matter, but is poorly presented, or rather, the authors do not support the conclusions in an irrefutable way. There is no clarity in the input data (to what period they refer, to what scale they were detected, by whom they were detected, etc ....); the tables in the text and in the appendix are all disrupted and it is not possible to read well the data they contend; the images of the analyzed data (derived and not surveyed data) are tiny and cannot really be useful for evaluating the work, because they are practically a spot of indistinct color; it would be important to document the places they deal with with images; the authors also do not deal with extreme events. The paper in this form is not acceptable for publication and needs more work to improve the quality of the presentation and content.
Author Response
We thank you for your comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents an interesting study on the Guryang watershed in the Republic of Korea, using a grid-based distributed model introduced by the authors to simulate surface and subsurface flows for rainfall-runoff using an interactive coupling method. An overview of coupled surface and subsurface models is also provided. The results showed that the simulated peaks of the runoff hydrographs were on average 11% lower than the measured ones, and after sensitivity analysis and calibration of the runoff parameters, the simulated peaks were on average 1% lower than the measured ones - with an improvement of all selected parameters for goodness of fit.
In general, this work does not have a clear objective - and consequently the structure of the work is not aligned with the one main objective. Reading the paper, I have the feeling that the authors composed the paper from two separate parts that are not sufficiently connected: (1) the first part refers to a general literature review of coupled (surface + subsurface) process-based rainfall-runoff models, and (2) the second part is the introduction of the coupled models proposed by the authors and used for the case study in the Guryang watershed in the Republic of Korea, with the sensitivity of the runoff parameters (porosity, residual water content, and pore distribution).For example, In presenting the existing models from the literature (Introduction and Table 1), it is not clear why they were selected and how they relate to the model developed by the authors. The advantages and disadvantages of the models are not explained in the introduction, nor is it explained what solutions the authors offer with their model compared to the existing models. In its current form, the paper seems like a compilation of different parts. Therefore, I would suggest that the authors rewrite the paper, focus on their model and case study, and resubmit it after major revision.
Specific comments:
The introduction (L25-95) is all about listing various models and then suddenly in a short paragraph at the end the authors state main goal (L96-107), though it is not clear how this relates to the previous introduction.
In the discussion (e.g., L383-415), the authors discuss coupled models, now focusing on urban runoff, models with social and environmental components, etc., mentioned for the first time. All previous sections focused exclusively on coupled surface-subsurface rainfall-runoff models, and I do not understand why this new information is discussed here. The comment on the applicability of the results obtained should be discussed in more detail in the Discussion/Results.
- Description of the developed model (L174-180) -the advantage of the proposed structure is not explained.
- L224-229 - the Greek letters are not described.
- Figure 4 - the newly developed measure of goodness of fit is not explained. What is the difference or advantage of it?
- Table 3 and 5 - difference should be stated as relative (%).
- Figure 8 - it is not clear from the legend of the figures which line/letter belongs to which parameter
- References - most of the papers are 7, 10 years old or older. Needs few more newer works that are up to 5 years old.
Author Response
We thank you for your comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I have provided comments on your manuscript, which will help you to revise it.
Good luck,
Reviewer
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank you for your comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After the changes and additions to the text made by the authors, their paper has significantly improved and is now publishable.
Author Response
We thank you for your comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
In this version the paper is slightly improved and it is easier to follow the main ideas, but this is not enough in my opinion and I would suggest the authors to rewrite the paper and resubmit it next time to Water or in another journal, as they have many interesting results.
The main reason for rejecting the paper is that the authors still did not express clearly enough what is the main contribution of their model compared to other approaches/models, and they did not address properly some of my comments: e.g. in the discussion they discuss again models and applications of models that have nothing to do with their model/application (e.g. SWMM model that is not analysed/compared; social and environmental application) etc.
Moreover, there are still some errors in the basic terms (e.g. SWMM model classified as "lumped"), the mention of some aspects in the literature as recent contributions, where the references are 13 years old or older,. see L.97, L143), the mention of the term "spectral range" of models (L34) ???.
Just to name a few...
Author Response
We thank you for your comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
a few more comments:
Lines 29-38: are missing references. You can use some of the suggested literature from my previous review.
Figure 1 should be centered. However, I can't judge on the editing part as the submitted version is track changes one.
Figures 6-15: are missing units.
Lines 433-434: I disagree with this statement. Once again, I'm referring the authors to the suggested literature in my previous review. Read carefully in this papers how the evaluation criteria should be described.
Figure 14: in the current form, it is useless and makes no sense at all. Look at the comment above.
Author Response
We thank you for your comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
