Review Reports
by
- Tribeni C. Sharma and
- Umed S. Panu *
Reviewer 1: Milan Stojković Reviewer 2: Ahmed Samy Kamis Reviewer 3: Satiprasad Sahoo
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Well research and write a paper, so it can be accepted in the present form.
Author Response
Response to the comments on our manuscript entitled “Reservoir Capacity Estimation by the Gould Probability Matrix, Drought Magnitude, and Behavior Analysis Methods: A Comparative Study Using Canadian Rivers by Tribeni C. Sharma and Umed S. Panu is as follows.
The authors thank reviewer# 1 for accepting the manuscript in its present form.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presented an interesting issue. It is valuable for water management. The only problem that faced during reviewing the paper was understanding the tables. Too much information to follow easily. I wonder if there is a way to represent the data in a graphical manner.
Author Response
Response to the comments on our manuscript entitled “Reservoir Capacity Estimation by the Gould Probability Matrix, Drought Magnitude, and Behavior Analysis Methods: A Comparative Study Using Canadian Rivers by Tribeni C. Sharma and Umed S. Panu is as follows.
The comment pertains to Methodology from Reviewer # 2
The methodology component is therefore thoroughly revised in Section 3.1 along with an illustrative example, described in detail in Appendix A.
Besides the above, Reviewer # 2 suggested that an attempt should be made to curtail the tables and present the information in the form of graphs. To this end, the authors found that only table #5 (old manuscript) could be removed and all relevant values are shown in figures 2 through 4. All other tables are necessary for the coherent readability of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
ü Research gap should be highlighted in the abstract.
ü The innovations of this work should also be described.
ü Need to highlight the methodological framework.
ü Recent research work will be incorporated in the literature review section due to regional and global aspect point of view.
ü What are the advantages of this method comparing other methods?
ü Figure 1 should replace the high resolution.
ü Strong calibration and validation are required for result justification purposes.
ü NSE is 99.96%?
ü Discussion part is missing.
ü Limitations of the work will be incorporated in the revised manuscript.
Author Response
Response to the comments on our manuscript entitled “Reservoir Capacity Estimation by the Gould Probability Matrix, Drought Magnitude, and Behavior Analysis Methods: A Comparative Study Using Canadian Rivers by Tribeni C. Sharma and Umed S. Panu is as follows.
The comment pertains to the Methodology from Reviewer # 3
The methodology component is therefore thoroughly revised in Section 3.1 along with an illustrative example, described in detail in Appendix A.
The other comments from Reviewer # 3 are responded to as follows.
Item 1: The Research gap should be highlighted in the abstract.
A sentence has been added in the Abstract highlighting the research gap concerning the comparison of three well-accepted methods i.e., the Gould probability method, the DM method, and the BA method. This manuscript endeavours to present such a comparative analysis.
Item 2: The innovations of this work should also be described.
First of all, this manuscript does not involve any innovation in its true sense. However, the manuscript attempts to clearly present the results of a comparative study among the three methods considered based on Canadian data. Such an analysis is presently not available in the literature and therefore is desired by practicing engineers towards the design of optimal sizing of reservoirs.
Item 3: Need to highlight the methodological framework.
The methodology has been considerably improved as described in section 3 with an illustrative example in Appendix A.
Item 4: Recent research work will be incorporated in the literature review section due to regional and global aspect point of view.
The authors have included all relevant references encompassing the regional as well as the global aspects of reservoir sizing. However, the authors would be thankful to receive additional references that Reviewer #3 may know with respect to his item 4. We look forward to such an opportunity.
Item 5: What are the advantages of this method comparing other methods?
The authors are simply presenting a comparative study of three commonly used methods for reservoir sizing. Therefore, no single method is being proposed for which advantages need to be illustrated.
Item 6: Figure 1 should replace the high resolution.
Figure 1 has been updated as per suggestions of the reviewer 3. The authors appreciate this suggestion.
Item 7: Strong calibration and validation are required for result justification purposes.
First of all, the authors have presented a comparative analysis of three well-established methods of reservoir sizing. In this regard, there is no formal requirement for the calibration and validation process for these methods because of their wide acceptance. The procedural documentation details already exist in the literature. The authors have strictly followed the protocols of each method as exist in the literature for comparative purposes. In addition, the authors have indicated the need for the selection of the number of zones for optimal reservoir sizing (for example such detail is provided in section 4.1, page 10) of the manuscript.
Item 8: NSE is 99.96%?
If we look at the relevant tables the correspondence between the CR estimates by the DM and BA methods is very high and they almost plot on a 1:1 line. Under such a situation, the variance of deviations (DM values minus BA values) is very small compared to the variance of BA (taken as reference) values. That is the reason that the values of NSE turned out to be so high. When the deviations are high such as in Fig. 3a and 3b, the NSE is much less.
Item 9: The discussion part is missing.
The authors presented the necessary and relevant discussion where it was most desired in the results and discussion part. However, two additional paragraphs have been added towards the end of the Results and Discussion section. The authors trust that such additional material has strengthened the Discussion section.
Item 10: Limitations of the work will be incorporated in the revised manuscript.
The limitation part is discussed in the last paragraph under the Results and Discussion section.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
No comments