Changes of Streamflow Caused by Early Start of Growing Season in Nevada, United States
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper in a form of real case study gives very detailed analysis of the impact of the precipitation and climate parameters on occurring of the streamflow(s) in Nevada, USA. Although there are many graphical presentations, as well as data analysis, which gave me a picture of the trends in changing of the torrential flows, I am suggesting a major revision.
1) Linear trends in all trend analysis do not have justification due to their small values of coefficient of determination R2. Authors should try with other types of regressions.
2) Time series analysis is very poor. Authors at least should provide at least RAPS analysis.
3) Authors should provide a correlation analysis between river flow with precipitations, which is a basic for the determining the intensity of the peak hydrogram values (duration and size) with regards to the precipitation.
4) Discussion section is very poor. Authors should give more comparison and analysis of the obtained results.
5) Authors should enclose a wider map of the analysed location; not only on microscale.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I am writing this to submit my comments on your research article with the following details.
Manuscript title: Changes of Streamflow Caused by Early Start of Growing Season in Nevada, United States
Manuscript Number: water-1163868
Journal Submitted: Water
Specific Comments:
Title:
The title is fine and acceptable.
Abstract:
The abstract needs attention. Please enrich it with more results, and what is your conclusion?
Mention the complete form of CHESS?
Also, how this study could apply to other regions.
Introduction:
This is a well-constructed part. The authors have found the study gap and provided most of the relevant background information. However, the authors need to identify their objectives clearly at the end of this section.
Materials and Methods:
Nicely described.
Results:
Since you are describing the working of a model, please elaborate on the outcomes with more details. This is not acceptable, and you need to explain what is between the lines and not already visible from the figures provided.
Section 3.2. Changes in SOS and EOS is very poor in the description. Please take care of it.
Please elongate the description.
Discussion:
The discussions are not acceptable. You need to add sufficient details here and discuss it. You have made a substantial effort in the introduction section but lost the momentum here. You have to improve it substantially.
Figures and Tables:
Figure 1. The figure legends text is blurred. Please improve it.
Figure 2. I guess it belongs to the supplementary or appendix part.
Figure 10 and other similar figures. The figure quality is too poor. Please enhance the font size and line thickness.
Conclusions
Nicely written.
References:
Okay, and acceptable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In this review round, I agree with all comments, answers, as well as corrections, except the last one. I think it is some kind of understanding. I insist on the map, not research. Analyzed area must be shown on a world wide level, or at least on a map of the USA, because the analyzed area is very probably unknown for the readers outside the USA.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I guess, no more changes or improvements are required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
