Does Flash Flood Model Performance Increase with Complexity? Signature and Sensitivity-Based Comparison of Conceptual and Process-Oriented Models on French Mediterranean Cases

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study compares the performance of the three hydrologic models with different complexity levels for simulating the flash floods. This project is well-designed and well-developed through the adequate discussions. However, the manuscript needs minor improvements to be publishable as a scientific paper. Here are some recommendations to improve the paper:

(1)         Despite other sections, introduction is not coherent and need to be revised. More previous works should be reviewed in the introduction part and the authors should discuss more about the current issues which would be addressed in this paper.

(2)         Please mention the acronyms before using them in the paper. For example, PET at table 1 (However, PET was mentioned in line 280) or CFL line 190.  

(3)         Please correct the minor errors appearing in the paper. Line 224 the term (following [?]) and Figure.A3 which took place after the reference section.  

(4)         Different algorithms were used to calibrate the different models. Authors should discuss why they selected the algorithms specifically for each model and whether this matter influence the performance of the model resulting a bias in comparison process. I expect well-developed discussion about this issue, you just mentioned it briefly in line 691.

(5)         Finally, it would be wonderful if you could argue about the computational cost of each model and compare them as well.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

Thank you for your positive evaluation of our work and for your feedbacks. Please find attached a detailed response letter.

Best regards,

P.-A. Garambois on behalf of the authors,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present a comprehensive study of the performances of different types of hydrological models in flash flood modeling. They conduct sound methods and sufficient workload but I think they may need to improve their writing for a better understanding and improved clarification. I recommend a publication after the authors address my concerns as follows.

L6-7 Please rephrase for better clarification.

L8 what does this mean - non-conservative flow?

L13-14- I do not clear what the authors mean here?

L57 integrative discharge - do you mean observed discharge?

L205-209 Need more sentences to describe GR4H models' parameters.

Figure 4: What is the grey bar? Please describe it in the legend. Also, please change legend order as - Qobs, Q_GR4, Q_SMASH, Q_Marine.

Figure 7: Please describe grey bar in the legend or caption

L650: the aim -> this study aims

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

Thank you for your positive evaluation of our work and for your feedbacks. Please find attached a detailed response letter.

Best regards,

P.-A. Garambois on behalf of the authors,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors of the manuscript named "Does flash flood model performances increase with complexity? Signature and sensitivity-based comparison of conceptual and process oriented models on French Mediterranean cases” touches upon the interesting issue of hydrological modelling complexity in flash floods. The case studies and your research setup provided in detail is well written and with adequate reading flow.

Some minor remarks;

-Please add more details on the seasonal rainfall runoff regime of the two catchments

-Can we assume that the two case studies are considered as “undisturbed” catchments? 

-In Table 7 (esp. due to the Ardeche case) please add the return period of the respective events examined

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

Thank you for your positive evaluation of our work and for your feedbacks. Please find attached a detailed response letter.

Best regards,

P.-A. Garambois on behalf of the authors,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf