Synthetic Drought Hydrograph
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Graphs between line 102-103, 258-259, 271-272, 306-307, 308-309, 318 -325 must be rearranged (align them with text above).
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
The figures were aligned as requested. Many thanks for this remark.
Best regareds.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper proposes a novel approach in the analyses of droughts with the use of the Syntetic Drought Hydrograph. Daily discharges at gauge Lungoci on the Seret River in the multi-annual period 1970-2008 were taken as the case study. In my opinion, the research contributes to a better understanding of the relationship between selected parameters of droughts, and it is also of practical importance in mitigating the socio-economic impacts of droughts. As such the study deserves attention. However, the manuscript requires some improvements before it is accepted for publication in the journal. Major flaws are as follows:
1. Please verify the notation of equations 1-3, and add the explanations of symbols in lines 85-96 on pages 2-3.
2. Figures 1-6: please correct (unify) the notation of units on the axes (“Discharge [m3/s]”, “Volume [mil. m3]”).
3. P. 3, l. 122-131: the explanation in this section is not fully understandable and needs to be rewritten.
4. Figure 3: the titles in the figure headers (“Correlation drought duration-deficit volume” and “Correlation minimum discharge-deficit volume”) are redundant since the same explanations can be found in the figure caption, so they can be deleted.
5. Figure 4: what is the meaning of „Drought 5” and „Drought 9”? Please add relevant explanations in the text. You may also consider deleting these headers and add relevant explanation in the figure caption.
6. Figures 5-11: I would suggest removing the titles from the figure headers (please refer to the aforementioned comments Nos. 4 and 5).
7. Figure 12: what is the meaning of the red line (“Analytical approximation”)? Please explain.
8. Discussion needs to be improved: please refer to the published papers of other researchers on the analysed problem, and on this basis discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed approach in the analysis of low flows.
9. In my opinion, methodologically, it would be more reasonable to carry out the analyses separately for different types of genetic low flows, as for example in the winter and summer seasons.
10. What about the homogeneity of the analysed data sets? Isn't it a problem that in the conditions of climate change the sequences of minimum flows of most rivers are not homogeneous? Please discus.
11. The text editing and graphics require amendments.
12. Please verify equations and explanations of variables.
13. The paper needs language corrections.
Generally, it is recommended to accept the submission for publication after major revision.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please, finad attached the answers to your comments, suggestions and concerns.
Many thanks for all of them.
Best regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. In the Abstract section the information presented in first four lines is already well known authors can simplify or reduce it.
2. What is the main novelty of this study the abstract section does not highlight any novelty.
3. In the introduction section what does the authors want to conclude from Figure 1 and Figure 2 a general paragraph in this regard will be useful and easy to follow.
4. Abbreviations should be explained at its first use some notations are difficult to understand authors should review it in all manuscript.
5. In section 2.1 authors should explain the procedure for threshold selection.
6. In section 2.4 what does the authors mean with the shape of drought authors can add a few lines to simplify the equations.
7. In section 3 authors should explain why the said study area has been used as a case study?
8. Authors should revise the quality of Figure 5 and 6 and revise explanation for both.
9. There is no discussion section for the results authors should discuss the uncertainties involved in this study.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please, find attached teh answers to your questions and suggestions. Many thanks for all of them.
Best regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Explanations and corrections made by the Authors are satisfactory but still require revision:
- Figures 1-13: please correct (unify) the notation of units on the axes (“Discharge [m3/s]”, “Volume [mil. m3]”).
- No description of the vertical axis in Figure 3.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Many thanks for your careful revision. Following your reccomendations, teh figures were corrceted as follows:
The notation of units on the axes was unified as suggested.
The description of the vertical axis in Figure 3 was added.
Best regards
Reviewer 3 Report
ACCEPT
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Many thanks again for your suggestions which helped us to improve the first version of the paper. Thank you also for the acceptance of the new version.
Best regards,
