Effects of Climate Change on Hydrology in the Most Relevant Mining Basin in the Eastern Legal Amazon

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title

The Title reflects the paper’s content accurately.

Abstract

The Abstract determines the paper’s content and objectives in a very manifest and complete fashion.

1. Introduction

 

In L26 insert after ‘changes’ ‘e.g. [1].  In order to give a more complete picture add the following in L33-34 : Iron + Copper ore constitute 11% of exports (2019) [2] and land area (acres) devoted to mining activities in the state of Pará, where the basin lies, is as follows: 6,563,873 (exploration activities), 206,823 (concessions), 28,716 (licensing) and 144,148 (artisanal mining) [3]. The last, fueled by poverty, poses particularly difficult to resolve governance and externality problems [4].

Otherwise, the Introduction is both adequate and highly informative.

2. Materials and Methods

Very good work.

3. Results

In L134-139  more examples are found in [5], [6], [7], [8]. Very well worked out and presented including the validation process.

4. Discussion

Quite exhaustive

5. Conclusions

Precise and firmly based on the previous sections.

References

[1]         Panagoulia, D., A. Bárdossy, and G. Lourmas, “Diagnostic statistics of daily rainfall variability in an evolving climate,” Adv. Geosci., vol. 7, pp. 349–354, 2006.

[2]         OEC, “Yearly Exports Brazil 2019,” OEC, 2022. https://oec.world/en/profile/country/bra#yearly-exports (accessed Mar. 22, 2022).

[3]         OECD, “2. Recent performance of the mining sector in Brazil,” OECD, 2020. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/d0409dfb-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/d0409dfb-en (accessed Mar. 22, 2022).

[4]         Nascimento, J. A. S. do, “Project Database: Documentation of Information about Small and Artisanal Mining-Brazilian Report,” Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

[5]         Neto, A. R., W. Collischonn, R. C. V. Da Silva, and C. E. M. Tucci, “Hydrological modelling in Amazonia - Use of the MGB-IPH model and alternative databases,” IAHS-AISH Publ., no. 303, pp. 246–254, 2006.

[6]         Fan, F. M., P. Rógenes, M. Pontes, L. Francisco, and D. S. Beltrame, “Operational Flood Forecasting System of the Uruguay River Basin Using the Hydrological Model Mgb-Iph,” 6th Int. Conf. flood Manag. - ICFM6, pp. 1–9, 2014.

[7]         de Oliveira, R. F., C. A. Zolin, D. de C. Victoria, T. R. Lopes, L. G. Vendrusculo, and J. Paulino, “Hydrological calibration and validation of the mgb-iph model for water resource management in the upper teles pires river basin in the amazon-cerrado ecotone in Brazil,” Acta Amaz., vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 54–63, 2019, doi: 10.1590/1809-4392201800812.

[8]         Jati, D. A., J. T. da Silva, R. Tapajós, and N. C. P. Pinheiro, “Sensitivity test of the Hydrological Model of Large Basins (MGB-IPH) in scenarios of extreme changes in soil use and occupation, precipitation regime and mean air temperature,” Rev. Bras. Geogr. Física, vol. 01, pp. 211–228, 2020.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 
Thank you for the comments and suggestions. All responses are in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. General comments: for obvious reasons including comparability purposes the paper deals with several methods and approaches, which seem to be not fully compatible, nevertheless. The limitations and simplifications are the key-point of any quantitative analysis. What is mentioned in the manuscript some variables were considered fixed (line 427). The Manning’s coefficient is the same for all reaches of the river (lines 162-163) etc. Taking all this into account we must be aware of fact that the conclusions of the presented investigation can serve only as one more hint for the authorities and hydrologists tackling the problem of effects of climate and anthropic change in the special region of Amazon.
2. Two different sections of the manuscript have the same name “Results” (lines 97 and 207). The authors should give different titles to the sections or place the whole text within one section.
3. The word “downscalled” in Figure 2 (line 101) is not justified.
4. As is well-known one of the most significant concepts in hydrology is the average recurrence interval or return period, which relates the probability of exceedance of hydrological event in one year. The concept of “exceedance of probability of daily discharge” (line 514) is rather strange. Compare also with the line 373: “90% exceedance probability”, which means probability of exceedance and is correct.
5. The phrase “seasonality errors using data” in line 120 is not good. The style may be improved.
6. Some comment is desired under the Figure 1 (line 94) to explain that the six strategic points will be described in Table 2 (line 205).
7. All the numbers in Table 3 are to be given with the same decimal number, i.e., 1880.0 instead of 1880 and 1928.0 instead of 1928.
8. The closing parenthesis after the words “from WFD data” in line 112 is superfluous or should be supplemented by the other one in front of the phrase.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 
Thank you for the comments and suggestions. All responses are in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 
Thank you for the comments and suggestions. All responses are in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf