Multi-Model Assessment of Climate Change Impacts on the Streamflow Conditions in the Kasai River Basin, Central Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find the comments in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The final sentence of the abstract is very general. Write specifically that the results of the species are used in practice.

The research objective and its innovation aspect are mentioned at the end of the introduction and before the objective.

On lines 226 to 253 it is necessary to provide information about the type of land use and its changes in the past based on previous studies in the study area. Part of the changes in the flow rate in the data that is considered observational may have occurred due to user changes.

In the section introducing the area under study, it is better to mention the presence of water storage structures (reservoir dam, regulatory dam and river flow deviation/diversion) that may cause changes in the flow irrigation values.

At the end, interpret the results of the change in the different Qs extracted from the FDCs separately. Somewhere in the text it is said that Q10 has decreased, and in another part, it refers to increasing trend in high flow values. This section is presented in a classified form.

In the conception section, the recommendations presented should be based on the conditions of the region, as well as based on the current results of the research. The summaries presented are general and a revision is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We greatly appreciate your thoughtful comments and constructive feedback. Please find attached the detailed responses to your observations, along with the corresponding revisions clearly highlighted in track changes within the re-submitted files. We believe these revisions address your concerns and improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript. Should you have any further questions or need additional clarification, we are happy to discuss them."

This version provides more context and professionalism while conveying appreciation and willingness to address further concerns. Let me know if you'd like any further adjustments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Editor-in-Chief

hydrology

# hydrology-3043015

Manuscript Title: Multi-model assessment of climate change impacts on the streamflow conditions in the Kasai River Basin, Central Africa

 

This study aimed to assess the impact of climate change on water availability in the KARB within the Congo River Basin, employing a multi-model framework tailored for data-scarce regions. By integrating various hydrological models and climate projections, the research demonstrated the sensitivity of water resource assessments to model selection and input data, highlighting the need for informed decision-making in future development plans, particularly regarding reservoir construction and hydroelectricity generation.

After a thorough review of the manuscript, I commend the authors for their meticulous and comprehensive efforts. While the manuscript demonstrates a commendable level of organization, I would like to provide constructive feedback for consideration during the revision process. Overall, I recommend a MAJOR revision to address the detailed comments outlined below.

 

- Include a final summary and implications in the abstract to provide readers with a concise overview of the study's key findings and their broader significance.

- The introduction section requires restructuring to enhance coherence, employing a funnel essay structure to progressively introduce the topic, broaden its scope, and then narrow it down to the specific focus of the study.

- The literature cited in the introduction should be elaborated upon to provide more detailed insights rather than just listing citation numbers.

- It is recommended to incorporate additional literature to engage readers and highlight various approaches in assessing the impacts of climate change on streamflow components.

- It is necessary to emphasize on evaluating the impact of climate change on indicators related to high-flow and low-flow streamflow (Q10, Q50, and Q90), with detailed rationale and explanation provided in this regard.

- The introduction lacks any indication of the novelty of the research.

- It is expected that the identified gaps or problems addressed by this research, based on the literature reviewed, should be clearly presented.

- Provide a clearer explanation regarding the accuracy of the climatic projections.

- It is necessary to provide explanations regarding the selected scenarios (RCPs 4.5 and 8.5) and the rationale behind their inclusion for prediction.

- In the research methodology section, clarification should be given regarding the presence of water storage reservoirs such as dams, and if they exist, how they are incorporated into the modeling.

- The selected models do not account for changes in land use during the study period, which could significantly impact the results of hydrological modeling. Further elaboration on this aspect is required to understand its implications.

- The sentence below explains the importance of high flows, so it seems that Q10 should have been referenced in the text instead of Q90. (The entire text needs to be reviewed considering this issue; if a flow duration curve has been used to determine Q at different percentages, then Q10 should correspond to flood flows and Q90 to low-flow discharges):

“Given the importance of high flow (Q90) in hydropower potential analysis, our analysis reveals that Q90 will be decreased by 25% and 13% under RCPs 4.5 and 8.5, respectively, with respect to the long-term average historical value.”

- Also, in the sentence below, a reference is made to reducing low flows. It seems that Q90 should have been mentioned in the text instead of Q10. This needs to be reviewed:

“Based on the ensemble of all models, the average decrease in low flow (Q10) is projected by 24% and 9% in the long-term future under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, respectively”

- Including the research limitations and sources of uncertainties in the conclusion section would enhance the overall comprehensiveness of the study.

- It is preferable to mention practical recommendations based on the results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English proficiency of the manuscript is satisfactory, but minor revisions are required.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We greatly appreciate your thoughtful comments and constructive feedback. Please find attached the detailed responses to your observations, along with the corresponding revisions clearly highlighted in track changes within the re-submitted files. We believe these revisions address your concerns and improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript. Should you have any further questions or need additional clarification, we are happy to discuss them."

This version provides more context and professionalism while conveying appreciation and willingness to address further concerns. Let me know if you'd like any further adjustments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx