Understanding Spatio-Temporal Hydrological Dynamics Using SWAT: A Case Study in the Pativilca Basin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed manuscript fits into the thematic area of ​​the journal. The content contained in the manuscript has been appropriately divided into chapters and subchapters. The methodology was presented  transparently. The results were discussed and conclusions were drawn, however the discussion is not developed. What is the take-home message of your manuscript? The last paragraph should give insightful/meaningful conclusions. The cited literature refers to the research topic, but requires supplementation with information from other researchers. The obtained results are supported by tables and figures - however, some figures/Tables require correction/supplementation.

 However, there are several issues in the reviewed manuscript that should be clarified/complemented, including:

 1. The introduction will need to be broaden to reflect the gaps in the literature of what has been studied in the context of the manuscript’ topic and state the existing gaps that the study completes.

22. The station from which the data was obtained should be shown in the figure, e.g. fig1 – ‘The hydrometric data set for the Cahua station from 2000 to 2015’ page 3 line 120

33.  I suggest clearly indicating which data comes from the years 1981-2015 and which from the years 2000-2015 - why was used data from such a short period? Were there daily, monthly, annual data? Where were the data from 1981 used?

44. How were the maximum and minimum temperatures determined?

55. I suggest providing a method for determining the values: ‘is the surface runoff in mm’, ‘the rainfall volume in mm’, ‘is the seepage water from the top into deeper layers in mm’, ‘T-Stat’ in the methodology,

66. Page 7 line 220 - the notation is not clear

77.  I suggest to clearly state the criterion for selecting ‘representative watersheds’ (page 8 figure5)

88. Page 12 line 276, page 13 line 300 ‘81.03 days’ – the notation is not clear

99. Table 3 – needs improvement (numbering applied to the values ​​of the 1st column)

110. Figure 10 - I suggest changing the title - 'Monthly' - it is not clear

111. I suggest writing in the same way throughout the manuscript: ‘T-Stat’ (page 7 line 201), ‘T-stat’ (page 7 line 201,203), ‘t-Stat’ (fig. 11),

112.  Page 15 line 355 - the notation is not clear

113. Page 16 point 3.4 – for the clarity of the text, I suggest using the designation/symbols introduced in point 2.3 throughout the manuscript – e.g. in point 2.3 ‘Eevt is the evapotranspiration in mm’ – in point 3.4 ‘evapotranspiration (ET) and others

114. Throughout the manuscript, I suggest paying attention to the precision (after the decimal point) – e.g. ‘32943.52 mm’ (page 16 line 388).

115.  Conclusions are too general

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We greatly appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions, which have significantly improved the quality of our work. Below, we provide detailed responses to your observations, with the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files. Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We greatly appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions, which have significantly improved the quality of our work. Below, we provide detailed responses to your observations, with the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files. Discussion section: We have revised and expanded the discussion section to provide a more in-depth analysis of our findings. The key points of the study have been emphasized to elucidate the broader implications of the results, aligning them with relevant literature to strengthen the context and interpretation of our data. Conclusions: The concluding paragraph has been thoroughly revised to deliver a clear and insightful take-home message. The conclusions now encapsulate the critical findings of the study, highlighting their significance and potential applications in the field of water resources management. Supplementation of cited literature: We have enriched the manuscript with additional references from recent studies, enhancing the discussion and situating our work within the broader context of current research. This includes supplementary citations that align with the topics discussed, further supporting the findings presented. Figures and tables: All figures and tables have been carefully reviewed and updated as needed. Corrections have been made to improve clarity and accuracy, ensuring that they effectively support the results discussed in the manuscript. Additional details and explanations have been included where necessary to enhance their comprehensibility. We hope that these revisions satisfactorily address your comments and improve the overall quality of the manuscript. We remain available for any further clarifications or modifications you may suggest. Thank you once again for your constructive feedback and for contributing to the enhancement of our work. Further details on the response to the reviewer's comments can be found in the attached Word document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study provides a valuable analysis of the hydrological cycle in mountainous watershed by analyzing seasonality for six groups of Pativilca basin. To improve the manuscript, I suggest the following revisions:

 1.     Introduction

A.     There is a lack of explanation such as the necessity of research, reasons for selecting the target basin.

B.     It is better to present specific research objectives rather than vague ones.

 

2.     Materials and Methods

A.     The methodology should include more details on cluster analysis and regionalization.

B.     Additionally, an explanation is needed on what “RAIN4PE” and “PISCO” are, and how meteorological data was generated using these methods.

C.     Additional explanation is needed for Figure 3 (flowchart).

 

3.     Results

A.     It is unclear the method for selecting the representative watershed for each group.

B.     Figure 6-9 show the time series graphs of meteorological data for each group, demonstrating consistency within the same group. However, there is no quantitative evaluation of results for regionalization and cluster analysis. It should be added in manuscript.

C.     Since Table 3 and Figure 11 present the same results, it would be better to remove one of them. The explanation for Figure 10 also seems insufficient.
And, the parameter sensitivity results based on p-value and T-stat showed that all parameters except CN2 appear to be insensitive. Therefore, it is necessary to explain why these parameters were used in this study as a hydrological model user.

D.     Please add information about the “Cahua hydrological station”.

E.      Figure 13: It is difficult to distinguish between the six groups and to identify the characteristics of each group. 

4. Uncertainty Analysis: Since this study did not perform uncertainty analysis, please remove it from the keywords

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We greatly appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions, which have significantly improved the quality of our work. Below, we provide detailed responses to your observations, with the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files.

1. Discussion section: We have revised and expanded the discussion section to provide a more in-depth analysis of our findings. The key points of the study have been emphasized to elucidate the broader implications of the results, aligning them with relevant literature to strengthen the context and interpretation of our data.
2. Conclusions: The concluding paragraph has been thoroughly revised to deliver a clear and insightful take-home message. The conclusions now encapsulate the critical findings of the study, highlighting their significance and potential applications in the field of water resources management.
3. Supplementation of cited literature: We have enriched the manuscript with additional references from recent studies, enhancing the discussion and situating our work within the broader context of current research. This includes supplementary citations that align with the topics discussed, further supporting the findings presented.
4. Figures and tables: All figures and tables have been carefully reviewed and updated as needed. Corrections have been made to improve clarity and accuracy, ensuring that they effectively support the results discussed in the manuscript. Additional details and explanations have been included where necessary to enhance their comprehensibility.

We hope that these revisions satisfactorily address your comments and improve the overall quality of the manuscript. We remain available for any further clarifications or modifications you may suggest.

Thank you once again for your constructive feedback and for contributing to the enhancement of our work.

Further details on the response to the reviewer's comments can be found in the attached Word document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for their comprehensive answers, which the reviewer read with great interest.