Regional Reconstruction of Po River Basin (Italy) Streamflow
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors produce two reconstructions of streamflow in the Po River Basin using streamflow gauges from a short and long period of record and gridded reconstructions of the June-August self-calibrating PDSI from the Old World Drought Atlas. I have no issues with their methods, which build on established literature. The paper is also well-written and organized for the most part. My most significant comments are with the conclusions, which do not really conclude. Lines 292-298 and Table 2 seem out of place and belong in the discussion section instead. Table 2 also needs a caption that describes the column headers, which as it currently exists, is likely to confuse readers. These adjustments would allow the authors to restate the new streamflow reconstructions, the methods used, and the upcoming research that will investigate the 2022 drought in more detail. These comments are all minor though, and do not impact the results.
Author Response
The authors produce two reconstructions of streamflow in the Po River Basin using streamflow gauges from a short and long period of record and gridded reconstructions of the June-August self-calibrating PDSI from the Old World Drought Atlas. I have no issues with their methods, which build on established literature. The paper is also well-written and organized for the most part.
Response: The authors appreciate the kind comments and support of the reviewer.
My most significant comments are with the conclusions, which do not really conclude. Lines 292-298 and Table 2 seem out of place and belong in the discussion section instead. Table 2 also needs a caption that describes the column headers, which as it currently exists, is likely to confuse readers. These adjustments would allow the authors to restate the new streamflow reconstructions, the methods used, and the upcoming research that will investigate the 2022 drought in more detail. These comments are all minor though, and do not impact the results.
Response: Agreed. A caption has been added for Table 2. Table 2 was moved to the Discussion section and the authors re-wrote accordingly.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper discusses one of the most important assessments needed at the moment. It is well presented and well written. Therefore, my decision is a minor revision.
Comments:
1. Citation – When the citation is a part of a sentence, you have to mention it and add the number as well. For example, Line 79 – [6] observed mixed results à “Obertelli (2020) [6] observed mixed results”
2. Figure 1 – Show the main river as well. It is not clearly visible.
It is not clear where the basin is located in Italy (mainly). In the small data frame (right top corner), add Po RB as like in Figure 3.
3. It is not clear in Table 2. The caption is missing.
4. The discussion and conclusion should be much more solid. Some of the conclusions (Table 2) should be in the Discussion part. So rewrite the discussion and conclusion parts.
Author Response
This paper discusses one of the most important assessments needed at the moment. It is well presented and well written. Therefore, my decision is a minor revision.
Comments:
- Citation – When the citation is a part of a sentence, you have to mention it and add the number as well. For example, Line 79 – [6] observed mixed results à “Obertelli (2020) [6] observed mixed results”
Response: Agreed. Per the reviewer’s suggestion, Obertelli (2020) was added.
- Figure 1 – Show the main river as well. It is not clearly visible.
It is not clear where the basin is located in Italy (mainly). In the small data frame (right top corner), add Po RB as like in Figure 3.
Response: Agreed. The authors revised Figure 1 per the reviewer’s suggestion.
- It is not clear in Table 2. The caption is missing.
Response: Agreed. A caption has been added for Table 2.
- The discussion and conclusion should be much more solid. Some of the conclusions (Table 2) should be in the Discussion part. So rewrite the discussion and conclusion parts.
Response: Agreed. Table 2 was moved to the Discussion section and the authors re-wrote accordingly.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have done a good job on the article. It is concise, well-written, and interesting research on reconstruction of streamflow of Po River Basin in Italy. I recommend this article to be accepted in the current form.
Author Response
The authors have done a good job on the article. It is concise, well-written, and interesting research on reconstruction of streamflow of Po River Basin in Italy. I recommend this article to be accepted in the current form.
Response: The authors appreciate the kind comments and support of the reviewer.
