Assessment of the Impact of Spatial Variability on Streamflow Predictions Using High-Resolution Modeling and Parameter Estimation: Case Study of Geumho River Catchment, South Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe comments are in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors investigated the impact of spatial variability on streamflow predictions using distributed hydrological modeling combined with the parameter estimation tool, PEST. Simulation experiments for the Geumho river catchment in South Korea were performed using WRF-Hydro with spatial resolutions of 100 m, 250 m, and 500 m, respectively, for land surface and routing components. Although this study has certain application value, this article lacks in logic of content as well as innovation of research, and the focus of the research is not prominent. I think significant revisions should be made before publication. Other detailed comments are as follows:
Section "Abstract":
(1) The abstract is a little vague on the conclusions aspect of the study, please rephrase.
(2) Please quantify the results of the research with relevant data, and it is recommended that you describe what impact the results of the research have on streamflow predictions in the context of the topic of this thesis.
(3)This part of lines 9-10 is not clearly stated, so the calibration results at 250m resolution are more stable in terms of parameter variability and calibration running time. In addition, the description of the research results in the abstract is too brief to describe the effect of changes in spatial resolution on the model parameters, which is the highlight of the study in this paper.
Section "Introduction":
(1) Regarding the fact that high-resolution modelling can improve the simulation accuracy, references should be added appropriately.
(2) The introduction contains a large description of the WRF-Hydro model used and relatively little on the research methodology PEST, suggesting the addition of relevant research results from recent years.
Section "Materials and Methods":
(1) Section 2.1 The hydrological information of the Geumho river catchment is insufficiently described.
(2) Figure 1.The latitude and longitude grids need to be redrawn and labelled N and E; just one compass is recommended.
(3)Line 130-131. A brief description of the IDW methodology is suggested.
(4) line 194-195. What are the obvious advantages of using 8 days of observation data and prior information from an observation station to calibrate a single parameter.
(5)Section 2.1 The data sources section is too lengthy。
(6)1. line 209-210. 'Literature review results identified the most influential parameter as the decay coefficient ’k’ in the infiltration capacity Equation', which I did not see in your literature review section. Please give an explanation of the article review.
(7) Line 211. The variable IA does not correspond to the following equation IC.
(8)Line 225. Literature citation number missing at (Gochis et al.) There are multiple identical issues in the article, so please check carefully.
(9)Section 2.2.4 It is recommended that the scope of the NSE evaluation indicators be clarified.
Section "Results":
(1)Section 3.1 Suggested addition of relevant charts for rainfall event 2.
Section " Discussion":
(1)3.3 This part is not the focus of this paper. The content reduction of this part can be combined with 3.2, just as the traffic prediction of unused sites. Put the content of Table 5 in the second part of the discussion on the phenomenon of differences in calibration running time.
(2)Figure.7 The latitude and longitude grids need to be redrawn, where the distribution of the flow colour bands in figure (a) is not obvious, so please redraw it.
(3)The discussion section has repeated discussions with the results section.
Section " Conclusions":
(1) It is recommended that the outlook for the future be preceded by a paragraph on the practical implications guided by the findings of this study.
(2)Line 403-417 are not refined enough to repeat the description of the results in Chapter 3, requiring only a brief description of this phenomenon, with a focus on its analysis and interpretation.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Quality of English should be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
