New Empirical Model Using Landscape Hydric Potential Method to Estimate Median Peak Discharges in Mountain Ungauged Catchments
, Dariusz Młyński 1, Jakub Wojkowski 2, Artur Radecki-Pawlik 3 and Tomáš Lepeška 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors present an empirical model to estimate the median peak discharge using the so called Landscape Hydric Potential (LHP) method. The paper is interesting and is reasonably well organized and written. The paper has potential to be a journal paper. However, a revision is required to improve the overall quality of the paper. The following should be addressed in the revised paper.
(1) Remove (LHP) from the title of the paper.
(2) Line 16, Change "needs correctly assessing of design discharges" to "needs correct assessment of design discharges"
(3) Line 83, Change "As showed Berghuijs et al. [15], …" to "As showed by Berghuijs et al. [15], …"
(4) Line 106, Change "expression as median ..." to "expressed in terms of median ..."
(5) The introduction section can be further improved by including pictures of structures that will emphasize the importance of this research and the model proposed.
(6) It will be very useful if the authors can include a nomenclature that includes all the symbols and abbreviations used in the paper. It will be a good reference for the readers and also the reviewers.
(7) Line 202, Change "papers Wałęga et al. [26] …" to "papers by Wałęga et al. [26] …"
(8) Throughout the paper the captions of the figures and tables can be improved by providing a sentence or two that explains the important aspects of the results shown. For example, in the caption of figure 11, the authors could explain the dashed lines and also explain the important points of the results shown.
(9) Line 414, Change "expression as a median of annual peak discharges …" to "expressed in terms of the median of annual peak discharges …"
(10) In the results section, it will be interesting if the authors include results based on other empirical models, so that the performance of the proposed model is validated properly.
Author Response
Reviewer comment: The authors present an empirical model to estimate the median peak discharge using the so called Landscape Hydric Potential (LHP) method. The paper is interesting and is reasonably well organized and written. The paper has potential to be a journal paper. However, a revision is required to improve the overall quality of the paper. The following should be addressed in the revised paper.
Author’s answer: We are very grateful to the Reviewer for review of our work. We are very happy with the positive evaluation of our work, and we hope that the presented version of our manuscript would be accepted to publish in Water journal. Please find below our point-by-point response to those concerns. All changes were marked using the "Track Changes" function.
Reviewer comment Remove (LHP) from the title of the paper.
Author’s answer: We removed LHP from the title of the paper
Reviewer comment Line 16, Change "needs correctly assessing of design discharges" to "needs correct assessment of design discharges"
Author’s answer: We changed this sentence
Reviewer comment Line 83, Change "As showed Berghuijs et al. [15], …" to "As showed by Berghuijs et al. [15], …"
Author’s answer: We changed this sentence
Reviewer comment Line 106, Change "expression as median ..." to "expressed in terms of median ..."
Author’s answer: We changed this sentence
Reviewer comment The introduction section can be further improved by including pictures of structures that will emphasize the importance of this research and the model proposed.
Author’s answer: Thank you for this suggestion. We added in Introduction few pictures of hydraulics structures that might be designed based on a proposed new formula
Reviewer comment It will be very useful if the authors can include a nomenclature that includes all the symbols and abbreviations used in the paper. It will be a good reference for the readers and also the reviewers.
Author’s answer: We added a nomenclature nomenclature that includes all the symbols and abbreviations used in the paper
Reviewer comment Line 202, Change "papers Wałęga et al. [26] …" to "papers by Wałęga et al. [26] …"
Author’s answer: We changed this sentence
Reviewer comment Throughout the paper the captions of the figures and tables can be improved by providing a sentence or two that explains the important aspects of the results shown. For example, in the caption of figure 11, the authors could explain the dashed lines and also explain the important points of the results shown.
Author’s answer: Thank you for this suggestion. We improved captions of the following figures: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and tables: 2, 3, 4
Reviewer comment Line 414, Change "expression as a median of annual peak discharges …" to "expressed in terms of the median of annual peak discharges …"
Author’s answer: We changed this sentence
Reviewer comment In the results section, it will be interesting if the authors include results based on other empirical models, so that the performance of the proposed model is validated properly.
Author’s answer: Unfortunately, we did not include the Reviewer’s suggestion because we showed a comparison of peak discharges with different return periods in the previous version of the paper. In the improved version that comparison is on pages 17-18 and fig 15 and 16. We compared peak discharges with return periods equal 100 and 10 years achieved from the following methods: Pearson type III distribution, the proposed model, areal regression equation and Punzet formula. The last two methods are commonly used empirical models to asses of peak discharges with different return periods in Polish conditions. We showed a comparison of results for four catchments: Ochotnica, Grajcarek, Kamienica, and Skawa. We hope that our explanation will be satisfied for the Reviewer.
Reviewer 2 Report
Journal: Water
Journal’s Ref.: water-756618
Title: New empirical model using landscape hydric potential method (LHP) to
estimate median peak discharges in mountain ungauged catchments
Authors: Andrzej Walega, Dariusz Młyński, Jakub Wojkowski, Artur Radecki-Pawlik,
Tomáš Lepeška
Date: 2020-03-15
Recommendation: Minor revisions are needed
Manuscript summary
[1] In this manuscript peak discharge is related to the area of the catchment as well as LHP
(see eq. (3)). LHP is a function of catchment’s attributes (see eq. (1)). 26 catchments in Poland
are examined in this setting.
Aim of the manuscript
[2] The manuscript aims to develop a linear model for estimating peak discharge in a basin
in Poland.
General evaluation
[3] The manuscript is well written, while the results are interesting for the region of Poland.
I have some minor comments (see following) while some additional computations can improve
the manuscript.
Comments
[4] Lines 121–128: This can be removed since they are already presented in Figure 1.
[5] Eq. (1) summarizes information by multiple variables, therefore some information may
be lost when inserting LHP in eq. (2) instead of setting a multiple linear regression model Q =
a1 + a2 A + a3 H + a4 St + …. In my opinion, such model should be estimated in combination
with some regularization algorithm, (e.g. with LASSO), considering that the sample is small
while the number of predictor variables is relatively high.
[6] x1 and x2 can be replaced directly by A and LHP in eq. (2). Please note that LHP should
not be in italics.
[7] Lines 196, 197: I do not think that this implies that the variables are independent and
2
belong to the same population.
[8] Figure 10 and relevant computations: Based on some large scale studies, logQ results in
better fittings. The authors may try some additional computations.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The title of this manuscript, The New Empirical Model Using Landscape Hydric Potential Method (LHP) to Estimate Median Peak Discharges in Mountain Ungauged Catchments, as well as the abstract of a manuscript are adequate and correspond to the contents. Authors used standard and understandable hydrological terminology and idea is clear and conclusion is logical.
Other than some minor typographical errors highlighted in the text, I would only have two remarks:
1. Estimates of all attributes for the calculation of LHP should be presented in a table.
2. The LHP parameter is specified for mountain basins that have very high terrain slope values. The sloping pitch was commented on. However, I would ask the authors to comment on the possible influence of the slope of the terrain on the resulting Qmed model. Since the model also depends on the catchment surface, large-area catchments are often also catchments with smaller surface slopes.
What is the size range of the basin to which this model can be applied?
Other than this, I have no other comments and I suggest accepting this manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer comments: The title of this manuscript, The New Empirical Model Using Landscape Hydric Potential Method (LHP) to Estimate Median Peak Discharges in Mountain Ungauged Catchments, as well as the abstract of a manuscript are adequate and correspond to the contents. Authors used standard and understandable hydrological terminology and idea is clear and conclusion is logical.
Author’s answer: We would like to thank for reviewing the manuscript and nice opinion about this paper. We greatly appreciate the Reviewer for it. Please find below our point-by-point response to those concerns. All changes were marked in the manuscript.
Reviewer comments: Other than some minor typographical errors highlighted in the text, I would only have two remarks:
Estimates of all attributes for the calculation of LHP should be presented in a table.
Author’s answer: We improved the errors that were highlighted in the text. We changed table 1 and added all attributes used for calculation of LHP Reviewer comments: The LHP parameter is specified for mountain basins that have very high terrain slope values. The sloping pitch was commented on. However, I would ask the authors to comment on the possible influence of the slope of the terrain on the resulting Qmed model. Since the model also depends on the catchment surface, large-area catchments are often also catchments with smaller surface slopes.
What is the size range of the basin to which this model can be applied?
Author’s answer: Thank you for suggestion. We agree with Reviewer and a short paragraph about the influence of slope catchments on peak discharges was added (line 288-295). The size range of catchments where the proposed model could be applied were added to the conclusion (line 500-501).
