Assessment of Land Cover Changes and Climate Variability Effects on Catchment Hydrology Using a Physically Distributed Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor,
I reviewed the manuscript “Assessment of Land Cover Changes and Climate Variability on Catchment Hydrology using Physically Distributed Model”.
The authors evaluated the effects of land-use changes on the hydrological processes of the Damodar catchment and its effects on the Panchet reservoir inflow by the use of the SWAT model.
The subject of the paper has relevance in environmental and land use change and water management context, considering the long-term monitored data, by the monitoring and modeling of the related processes. This kind of study has high importance, mainly considering the land-use changes on the changes in water processes and water balance.
Thus the paper has a relevant subject, adequate to be published in the journal Sustainability.
Important information is missing in the abstract. The results are well presented. Bibliographic references, figures, and tables are in sufficient quantity.
The tables have high quality. However, the figures need improvements, as mentioned below.
I recommend an English language grammar review.
I made major comments and the adjustments are needed to improve the manuscript, as described below.
I missed the description of the problem of the studied area in the Introduction section. I recommend including what is the problem. Why were these watersheds and reservoirs chosen to be studied and not others were chosen?
Maps of Figure 1 need to be improved with the same quality as the map of the catchment located on page 3. Allocate all the images of Figure 1 on the same page.
The boundaries and the contribution areas of the Barisam, Banikdih, Mahrand, and Nagwan catchments should be inserted in Figure 1 and in the text.
The area and volume (maximum or normal) of each reservoir should be inserted in the text.
Maps of the digital elevation model, soil type, and land use should be inserted in the manuscript since these maps are base maps of the model.
Was the warm-up performed? This is an important step to introduce the water into the system for simulation. Two to three years of the warm-up are needed for the areas with average annual rainfall such as the studied area.
May the low initial soil moisture and the high storage loss (Page 6, line 205; page 7, lines 244-246) occur because the warm-up was not performed? Or it occurs due to the conditions before the rainy season?
The changes in climate and in land use and land cover are good or not good for the availability and for the multiple uses of water, and also, these changes in the LULC are good or not good for agriculture/production systems and for the environment (Page 12, lines 393-406)?
It is important to indicate how many watersheds and HRUs were established in each catchment.
In several parts of the Results and discussion section, there is a mix of Material and methods and Results and discussion. For example, on Page 6, lines 210-2011, the sentence “Statistical tests were performed to compare the simulated monthly runoff with its measured counterpart” belongs to the Material and methods section, while the sentence “statistics for calibration periods were presented in Table 2.” Belongs to the Results and discussion. It is necessary to review and correct this whole text.
An important point that needs a thorough and careful review is the discussion. The discussion is weak since the behavior of the results is little explained and justified. The results should be further explained and explored to describe the processes in the discussion. The key point to improve the discussion is "the description of processes related to changes in runoff and water storage". Additionally, the discussion should be improved based on other results obtained by the other authors.
In the conclusion section, I recommend indicating the indicator that allows concluding that climate change was more responsible for water change than land use and land cover. Indicate based on what this conclusion was made.
How do authors separate the effects of climate change from the effects of land use and land cover?
Minor comments
In the whole text, replace "&" with "and".
Page 1, line 11: Indicate the kind of changes.
Page 1, lines 12-14: Indicate the drainage area of the catchments and the location (State, Country).
Page 1, line 14: Indicate the impact of what.
Page 1, lines 19-21: How much it is in terms of runoff or volume (mm or m3)?
Page 2, line 76: Insert a space between the number and °C.
Page 2, line 77: Delete space between the number and %.
Author Response
The authors like to thank the reviewer for the useful comments for the improvement of the manuscript. The reply for each comment is given below and incorporation is done in the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments to the authors.
The effort made and the ideas contributed in the manuscript are appreciated. Some general and specific recommendations are made.
Good luck.
General and specific comments are listed below.
-- The document presented lacks scientific rigor. In its current state, it is closer to a technical manual for the generation of hydrological scenarios than to scientific research.
-- It is necessary to deeply improve the wording in all sections.
-- The methodology requires significant improvements. It lacks basic structure and order in the processes, limiting its understanding and comprehension of results.
-- There is no discussion of results. Only the tables are described, limiting the importance of the work and the scientific contribution.
-- The work does not show the relationship of LULC with climate variability during the development of the work, results and conclusions.
-- Although the title suggests a study that integrates climate variability, climate change is indicated in several paragraphs. There is confusion on the part of the authors about these phenomena.
-- The authors indicate that from a trend analysis of climate data with Mann-Kendall, climate variability is analyzed. It is not explained how this statement is arrived at.
-- It is recommended to add in the section: Introduction, references that associate climate variability vs LULC.
-- Figure 1 (color map). It is recommended to improve the quality. In its current state, it does not contribute to localization.
-- Figure 1 (watershed model). Indicate in the section: Study area that the figure is the result of hydrological modeling.
Lines 27 and 28. Specify the idea.
Lines 82 to 84. Add reference to the DEM data.
Lines 84 to 86. Add references to the method used to classify soils based on their physical properties.
Line 88. Add the complete reference.
Lines 89 to 96. It is recommended to add the process (short text/diagram) to obtain land cover and LULC maps. Also the months of the images used and the download source.
Lines 114 and 115. Add references.
I recommend adding a flowchart of the SWAT model process, to strengthen the text.
Lines 121 to 123. Describe the parameters used and how they were used for calibration.
Lines 123 to 125. How was the parameter rescaling done?
When carrying out a process to fit/parameterize models, it is important to describe why a particular process is used, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the information that is intended to be obtained.
Lines 141 to 142. Add references. What is an IMD grid?
Lines 145 to 149. Although the detailed consultation reference of the technique used is added, it is important to add relevant information about the usefulness of the test (M-K) and why it was used in particular and why another test was not used.
Lines 152 to 154. It is recommended to document the approach used. If it is a proposal by the authors, it is important to mention it.
Lines 171 and 172. Control points collected in the field are generally used to evaluate a classified image. What method was used for the random distribution of control points?
It is recommended to place the processed Landsat 7 image with the control points.
It is important to indicate the full name of the abbreviations used in all figures and tables.
Improve the conclusions section.
Discussion of the results is recommended.
Author Response
The authors like to thank the reviewer for the useful comments for the improvement of the manuscript. The reply for each comment is given below and incorporation is done in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Abstract line 21: as per the objective and the title of the research you are expected to indicate also the impact of climate variability in the hydrological process in the abstract. you focused only on LULC impact. Include this part also
Objective line 66 to 68: calibration and validation is a normal procedure that any one who is using hydrological model needs to do it, therefore calibration and validation can't be an objective. it is a must and part of a procedure in any hydrological modelling process before obtaining the intended result of hydrological process change. so remove this first objective and focus on second objective.
The other issue is; there is a clear difference between climate change and climate variability, don't use these terms ex-changeably, try to show that either you are looking impact of climate variability or climate change in hydrological process.
Study area (Figure 1) needs to be clear.
Line 97 to 106: why your climate data is till 2007, which is 15 years old, now we are in 2022. do you have any justification, how you will accommodate changes after 2007 and till 2022.
section 2.4 line 120 to 139: for calibration 3 years data is very small, there is no any observation in your study area? the sate of the art in hydrological modelling needs at least 5 to 10 years data. please justify this
to transfer data from gauged station to un gauged (Damodar), you need to do catchment similarity, otherwise without doing this it is not possible to transfer data. please do this or justify
as I indicated in the previous comment these two years data is not sufficient to see LULC changes in hydrological process.
section 2.6 Line 151 to 166: here in this procedure (section 2.6) of looking the LULC of the three time slices, you need to have observed discharge data of the same time slices, otherwise modelling hydrological process in different time scale for LULC , Climate and discharge is wrong model set-up. You will get a result from SWAT, but it will be modelling with wrong data, don't forget also in my previous comment you need to do catchment similarity analysis before transferring discharge data from gauged to un-gauged
Result and discussion line 169 to 174: one has to indicate how you did the LULC analysis in the methodology section before taking about accuracy assessment and Kappa statistics in result section. How do you do the LULC classification /analysis, is it supervised or unsupervised classification? You need to indicate also the LULC change matrix in order to see the dominant changes occurred in the study area
Line 180 to 182: do LULC change matrix to justify these changes in the study area
section 3.2 see the above comment in the methodology section regarding the time for calibration and validation
section 3.6 : the impact of climate variability on hydrology was not indicated like what was attempted for LULC impact on hydrology, so can you indicate the impact of climate variability on hydrology quantitatively?
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors like to thank the reviewer for the useful comments for the improvement of the manuscript. The reply for each comment is given below and incorporation is done in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor,
I reviewed the manuscript “Assessment of Land Cover Changes and Climate Variability on Catchment Hydrology using Physically Distributed Model”.
The authors evaluated the effects of land-use changes on the hydrological processes of the Damodar catchment and its effects on the Panchet reservoir inflow by the use of the SWAT model. The paper has a relevant subject, adequate to be published in the journal Sustainability.
The authors made most part of the suggestions. I made some minor comments and adjustments suggestions, as described below.
I recommend the author include the information related to the importance of the chosen watersheds, as made in the reply (“The catchment is important … ensure proper catchment planning and management for future.”) in the Introduction section. Thus, the problem of the studied area will be described and the state of the art will be clear in the Introduction section.
The maps of the digital elevation model, soil type, and land use should be inserted, as a supplementary file, in the manuscript.
Insert the warm-up period in the manuscript, it is important information that helps to explain the results.
Author Response
The authors like to thank the reviewer for the useful comments for the improvement of the manuscript. The reply for each comment is given below and incorporation is done in the manuscript.
Dear Editor,
I reviewed the manuscript “Assessment of Land Cover Changes and Climate Variability on Catchment Hydrology using Physically Distributed Model”.
The authors evaluated the effects of land-use changes on the hydrological processes of the Damodar catchment and its effects on the Panchet reservoir inflow by the use of the SWAT model. The paper has a relevant subject, adequate to be published in the journal Sustainability.
The authors made most part of the suggestions. I made some minor comments and adjustments suggestions, as described below.
Comment: I recommend the author include the information related to the importance of the chosen watersheds, as made in the reply (“The catchment is important … ensure proper catchment planning and management for future.”) in the Introduction section. Thus, the problem of the studied area will be described and the state of the art will be clear in the Introduction section.
Reply: Incorporation done as per the suggestion of the reviewer.
Comment: The maps of the digital elevation model, soil type, and land use should be inserted, as a supplementary file, in the manuscript.
Reply: Maps will be inserted as supplementary file in the manuscript
Comment: Insert the warm-up period in the manuscript, it is important information that helps to explain the results.
Reply: Incorporation done as per the suggestion of the reviewer.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments to the authors.
I thank the authors for the response to the comments.
I consider that the work has improved significantly, however, in most of the comments, the answer provides more information than the text of the manuscript. I recommend that it be integrated into the document to strengthen the investigation.
Good luck.
Author Response
The authors like to thank the reviewer for the useful comments for the improvement of the manuscript. The reply for each comment is given below and incorporation is done in the manuscript.
Comment: I thank the authors for the response to the comments.
I consider that the work has improved significantly, however, in most of the comments, the answer provides more information than the text of the manuscript. I recommend that it be integrated into the document to strengthen the investigation.
Good luck.
Reply: As the reviewer comments, that more information is given in answer of the comments of review one as compare to the text in the manuscript, we try to incorporate the matter in the manuscript. Some of the matter we, will be provided in supplementary file for the better understanding of the readers of the journal.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
