Small Catchment Runoff Sensitivity to Station Density and Spatial Interpolation: Hydrological Modeling of Heavy Rainfall Using a Dense Rain Gauge Network

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study evaluated the runoff sensitivity in the small catchment based on different station densities and interpolation methods. The overall approaches are appropriately constructed and explained, and there are many meaningful results, which would be a good addition to this journal. However, general English editing is required before publication.

 

Please see the specific comments below.

 

Comments

- Significant English editing is required for the publication.

- Figure 1. Please add a map of entire Europe for the international reader.

- Figure 4. It is confused to see where it is presented. The authors need to add a reference map to highlight.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors investigated the effect of different rain gauge densities on runoff modelling for three short-duration and three long-duration runoff events for small catchments in Austria. Rainfall data were spatially interpolated using Inverse Distance Weighting  (IDW) and Thiessen Polygons (TP). Results indicate that a higher rainfall density leads to a better runoff prediction. The number of rainfall stations can be less if runoff events of longer durations are considered. The choice of the interpolation method is less important than the number of rain gauges included for modeling.

In general, this topic is highly relevant for a large variety of hydrological studies and the manuscript has the potential to be published in “Water”. However, I have some general remarks that should be considered in a revised version of this manuscript.

• It is confusing for the reader, why two different sets of rainfall stations were used. The authors use a “Primary network” (12-158 stations) and a “Complementary network” (12-75 stations). I do not understand what is the reason behind using these two different networks. The main objective of the study was to analyze the effect of rain gauge density on runoff prediction. In my opinion, it is sufficient to include 5 ZAMG stations, 3 AHYD stations and the WEGN stations to build the primary network and that’s it. Why in addition a complementary network? This makes the text sometimes difficult to read and the benefit is unclear to me.
• The discussion section needs to be divided in subsections according to different aspects (e.g., comparison IDW and TP, long-term events short term events, runoff peaks…). As it is now, it is difficult to follow. In addition, the discussion is very wordy and should be shortened.
• The conclusion is too long! Try to shorten this section and present some sharp conclusive points that are of interest for the readership
• Sometimes I felt it would be fine if a native speaker could cross-check the manuscript.

 

Specific comments

line 16ff: “We perform…” It is better to write in past tense, here and further down

lines 91-94: maybe better to put these research questions at the end of the introduction.

lines 97-100: consider deleting

lines 101-122: this should drastically be shortened. parts are methods. In addition, it is not necessary to write what is the content of section 4.1 or 4.2 or any other section

line 138: “sandy loam”: this is soil texture not soil type

line 139-141: I thought the study area was chosen because of the dense precipitation network.

line 141: “highly dense” That sounds strange. I think “dense” or “very dense” is sufficient.

line 177: that sounds strange. Maybe better: "...static attributes are needed."

line 221: please, use English date format

line 246: “PBIAS”

lines 260-267: consider deleting. “We analyzed…” instead of “We are analyzing…”

fig3: column station networks: first box: In the text, it is written that ten networks belong to the primary network. Does this mean that these two networks (ZAMG, AHYD) should be part of the 2^nd box “Primary networks”?

lines 276-278: This is important: I do not see a benefit to include this network. It confuses the reader. Or I would suggest another research design. Just take the 12-station case and select maybe 20 randomly selected 12-comp-station networks. I know it would be a lot of work. If this is not feasible think about deleting the results of the “complementary network” unless it is very important to show. Or another option. Write that you have done this and briefly present the results in the text but without any graphics. As it is now, it really confuses the reader.

line 283: factor 1.45. That does not make sense. I know what you mean but this is mathematically incorrect: 158 times (factor) 1.45 equals to 229.1

line 282-283: “We decreased…” instead of “we decrease…”

Table 3: Most of the information in this table is presented in fig 3. Therefore, consider removing this table and present the “mean nearest …” somewhere else (in fig. 3?)

line 311: “we conduct…” Please, here and anywhere else. Write in past tense: “We conducted…”

lines 314-323: Here is room for shortening the text. This is all information of the table 4 and can therefore completely be deleted.

lines 388-392: Please, try to write concise. This is a kind of figure caption. The reader sees what is visualized. The same holds true for lines 404-408. These lines can be deleted.

results section: This section is sometimes very difficult to read. lines 414-444: There are too many numbers. Try to shorten the text. I would probably restructure the results section: 1. Effect on peak flow, 2. effect on timing of peak 3. influence of the choice of rain gauges (comparison “primary network” and “complementary network”) 4. influence of interpolation method.

Figure 7: This figure is nice. However, what is the difference to fig 8?

discussion: this section must be structured and substantially shortened

conclusion: this section must be shortened. Conclusion does not mean to repeat what you have done but what are the take home messages. In addition, try to generalize the results. What is the benefit for researches in other catchments and so on.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors did a great job and substantially improved the quality of the ms. They considered most of my suggestions. I recommend the publication of the article