Effects of the Time Period Length on the Determination of Long-Term Mean Annual Discharge

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The introduction storyline should be symmetric and well connected.

Minor elaboration of the previous work may be done.

Conclusion should be in line with the introduction.

A sound reason of presenting the 30 years map should be added inline with the introduction. 

Author Response

The introduction storyline should be symmetric and well connected.

Introduction reformulated in lines 25-39

 

Minor elaboration of the previous work may be done.

In this manuscript we did not consider to mention this. As the work is considered as communication, we did not go into the detail describing the previous work, however we have put some of the previous works of the authors as references throughout the text– reference no. 3, 8, 13, 15, 17, 18 and 19

Conclusion should be in line with the introduction.

Edited the conclusion in lines 241 - 243

The evaluation of the hydrological regime through the analysis of the moving averages was done with the intention to re-evaluate the currently used reference period used as hydrological design values in national decision making processes.

A sound reason of presenting the 30 years map should be added in line with the introduction.

Edited in the introduction is the lines 46 to 48.

the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) [14] which recommends the 30-year period 1991-2020 for the purpose of the comparison of the hydrological and climatic characteristics.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, the manuscript presents a valuable analysis of the reference period used in Slovakia for assessing the hydrological regime, and provides insights into the need for updating this period. However, there are several areas where the manuscript could be improved, and some additional information that would be helpful to readers. Specifically, the following comments are suggested for revision:

1. The abstract provides a clear overview of the study objectives and findings, but it could be improved by including more specific details about the methodology used. For example, it would be helpful to mention the statistical tests or analyses that were used to evaluate the differences between the reference periods.

2. The manuscript would benefit from additional details about the low flow characteristics that were analyzed. Specifically, it would be helpful to know how these characteristics were defined or measured, and whether they were evaluated separately for different sub-basins.

3. The conclusion section is well-written, but it could be more concise. Specifically, some of the statements could be combined or rephrased to improve clarity.

4. The manuscript could benefit from additional discussion of the implications of the study findings. For example, it would be helpful to know how the new reference period will be implemented in practice, and what impact it may have on water management practices.

5. Finally, the manuscript could be improved by including more information about the limitations of the study. Specifically, it would be helpful to know whether there were any factors that may have influenced the study findings, such as changes in land use or climate variability.

Author Response

The abstract provides a clear overview of the study objectives and findings, but it could be improved by including more specific details about the methodology used. For example, it would be helpful to mention the statistical tests or analyses that were used to evaluate the differences between the reference periods.

Abstract was edited in lines 17 to 18 and 20 to 21

 

The manuscript would benefit from additional details about the low flow characteristics that were analyzed. Specifically, it would be helpful to know how these characteristics were defined or measured, and whether they were evaluated separately for different sub-basins.

Low flow characteristics were not analyzed, only mean annual discharges. Edited in introduction

 

The conclusion section is well-written, but it could be more concise. Specifically, some of the statements could be combined or rephrased to improve clarity.

We see no reason to shorten the conclusion

 

The manuscript could benefit from additional discussion of the implications of the study findings. For example, it would be helpful to know how the new reference period will be implemented in practice, and what impact it may have on water management practices.

Edited in the conclusion in the lines 262 to 269

The results indicated that the use of the 30-year long period 1991-2020 is probably suitable especially for mutual comparison between climatic and hydrological characteristics for the climate change research. The main issue remains the establishment of the new reference period for design values used in the water management. This is a sensitive topic, be-cause this characteristics, especially in the area of low flows, have a direct impact on the water use (e.g.; dam management, permissions for water use, sewage systems). Therefore, the main question to be addressed in the further research.

 

 

Finally, the manuscript could be improved by including more information about the limitations of the study. Specifically, it would be helpful to know whether there were any factors that may have influenced the study findings, such as changes in land use or climate variability.

Limitations of the study were addressed by picking the water-gauging stations without human influence. It is mentioned in the introduction.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

As a communication article, it is a valuable article. However, due to the lack of novelty, it can not be considered a "research article". I also recommend minor proofreading checks. 

Author Response

As a communication article, it is a valuable article. However, due to the lack of novelty, it cannot be considered a "research article". I also recommend minor proofreading checks

We agree. Some additional proofreading checks have been done, due to the other reviewers as well.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx