Assessment of Future Land Use/Land Cover Scenarios on the Hydrology of a Coastal Basin in South-Central Chile

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study evaluates the impacts of land use change on the water balance of the Andalien river basin were evaluated by simulating these future scenarios, using the calibrated and validated hydrological model. Generally, the academic contributions and innovations of this study are not clear to me. My comments and questions are as follows:

Abstract

There is some general information mentioned in the first few sentences of the abstract from lines 17 to 23. There is a need to revise and summarize it.

Introduction

In the first three paragraphs, the authors have given detailed general information and facts worldwide. These paras should be summarized in a single paragraph. No need to give such in detail. Furthermore, para 4 should be part of the study area. You have to give more detail about your objectives and problem statement.

Study area

In this section, I suggest you prepare your own land use/cover map with better resolution. For that, You can use Google Earth Engine (GEE). Otherwise, you need to revise your study area map by enhancing its resolution.

Satellite image processing and classification of land uses:

You have taken Landsat 5 images in the months of December, January till April, but Landsat 8 Images in August and September. I suggest you modify your datasets with the same month. Otherwise, it will affect your findings.

You mentioned that you have used the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model for hydrological modeling, but you did not mention the detail in the abstract.

The overall methodology is not clear to me. I suggest you write it more concisely.

Result

All the Figures should be improved and add necessary map components. It is better to use either a table or a graph. In some points, results are so confusing and redundant.

Conclusion

The authors should specify their scientific innovation and contribution to this study in this section, which is missing.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors proposed a manuscript titled “Assessment of future land use/land cover scenarios on the hydrology of a coastal basin in south central of Chile”. The manuscript seems interesting, and it may be suitable for publication after some major changes. I have included necessary comments to obtain the additional information for improvement in the manuscript.

The abstract could be improved. The authors should include little detail about the data collection and analysis in abstract. Also include the main findings of “impacts of the dynamics of LULC on the hydrological response”
Page 1, line 26: which satellite image was used and for what time?

Page 1, line 28: include the name of hydrological model

Page 1, line 29-30: rephrase the sentences “The results revealed consequences on the water balance of the basin particularly in water storage in the soil and negative effects on the water yield”

Page 1, line 32: how much decrease in percolation was observed  

Page 2, line 80: what is meant by “according to [19]”

Page 4, line 134: delete word “see”

Page 4, line 115: need correction as “36°42′ to 36°56′ S and 72°36′to 73°04′ W”

Page 4, line 140-161: Have the authors performed the evaluation and accuracy assessment for land use classes, includes completes procedure

Page 4, line 141: provide detail about the atmospheric and geometric correction in FLAASH module of ENVI 5.3 software

Page 5, line 165-174: include detail about the model preparation using the input data for calibration, model calibration parameter

Page 5, line 175-176: need procedure of Hydrological response units (HRUs) using the SWAT model

Methodology about the sensitivity analysis, calibration, validation, and evaluation of the SWAT model is not clear, only general statements are given

Page 9: Interpret the results presented in the Table 5 and Table 6 instead of “Table 5 and Table 6 show the results of the evaluation of 301 the model using the adjustment indicators for the calibration and validation phases, and 302 model performance according to the Moriasi criterion”

Conclusions should be data based and should have quantitative analysis  

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I find your research very insightful for the topic and congratulate on this very good research. I have some comments for minor revision, please see in the pdf attached. Methodology is rich and clearly stated. Presentation of results are good as well as all figures and tables. 

With kind regards. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper presents a robust methodology and relevant results for the study region. However, it has serious errors in its structure. I could recommend its publication after the reviews described below:

 

Please check that the citations are in the standards of the journal.

Once the acronym LULC has been defined, use it throughout the manuscript.

L64 – I don’t understand this citation “According to Kelty (2013) (Kelty, 2006)”.

L94 – Please check this citation “According to Aguayo et al. (2009) (Aguayo et al., 2009)”.

L100 - How can you state that there are no other studies in Chile on this issue?

In topic 2.2, please highlight the differences between Landsat 5 TM and Landsat 8 OLI and the reason for changing the period (month) of image acquisition.

Be more succinct in topic 2.3, especially in the first paragraph.

L204 - Why were nine years used for the heating period? It seems too high to me. If it is because of the Landsat data, clarify this in the manuscript.

How was the Landsat data used in the calibration and validation of the hydrological model?

L207-208 - Why were five years used for calibration and nine years for validation? Wouldn't the ideal be seven years for each?

L259-260 - Were average data from 1994 to 2015 used?

L304 - Table 4. The CN2, RCHRG_DP, and HRU_SLP (among others) values seemed high to me. What is the justification for these values?

L306 - I don't understand how the validation in Table 5 was performed. The result is from 2003 to 2007.

L360 - Based on the prediction error of the CA-Markov model, wouldn't it be prudent to correct the projections for 2025, 2035, and 2045?

L389 - Why has the hydrological behavior changed in 2045? Some components of the hydrological cycle, such as percolation and groundwater, showed a different pattern than what was expected for the year 2045.

In general, there is too much information in the Results section and this leaves the reader feeling lost. I suggest you filter the content better and remove information that does not add as much to the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am happy with the current changes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment,

 

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have revised their manuscript as per suggestions. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment,

 

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors met most of my suggestions satisfactorily. Therefore, I recommend the publication of the paper. I only suggest that the authors correct the footnotes and the title in Supplementary Material C1 before the manuscript is published.

Author Response

Please see the attachment,

 

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf