Hydrological Processes in Eucalypt and Pine Forested Headwater Catchments within Mediterranean Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Water in all Mediterranean countries is of vital importance. There is a trend in all basins of an increase in forest mass and a decrease in water resources, more evapotranspiration and less water in the soil. For this reason, studies such as those presented are of vital importance. The papere is well focused during the introduction, making a good state of the art. References are adequate. On the methodology a point in favor, are all the years of study, which is important to have different situations, since there can be very important annual variations.
The weakest point is the discussion. The authors say that these types of studies are important, for example to carry out forest management, but, given the extensive knowledge that the authors of the study area have, they could formulate some type of suggestion proposal in this section, also referring to this scenario of global change that the authors also point to. Another question that readers might ask is what happens when these eucalyptus and pine trees are cut down? A single year after logging can modify the entire hydrology of a long period ?, decades ?.

Author Response

Please find enclosed the point-by-point response to the reviewer 1 comments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper gives a very realistic and practical approach of the Eucalypt and Pine forested headwater catchments, with regards to using the land within the analyzed catchments. Paper also has scientific values, because of the original invented methodology. Literature review is written very seriously, all input data are presented in the required level of details.

I am proposing a minor revision.

1) Abstract should not be so long. Authors should comprime existing (obtained) results in shortened form.

2) Authors should provide correlation between Q and Rainfall, like they did on Figure 3. This is for the purpose of better understanding of the hydrological balance within the analyzed area.

3) Authors should comment about the torrential characteristics of the rivers, which can be observed from Figure 4. In other words, occurrence of the precipitation leads to the increasing the flow. Such is of importance due to the afforestation and transport of the sediments from the land in catchment. 4) Equation curves on Figure 5 should be more prominent. 

Author Response

Please find enclosed the point-by-point response to the reviewer 2 comments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript describes water budgets for two headwater catchments, dominated by plantation forests, in the coastal mountains of Portugal.  Relationships of annual and event precipitation, evapotranspiration, and streamflow were examined.  Evapotranspiration rates were found to be similar among years, even with inter-annular differences in precipitation.  The Pine plantations had higher levels of ET than the eucalyptus plantations. 

This manuscript presents a useful quantification of the water budget of two common plantation species used in Mediterranean climates.  This provides a change in knowledge of hydrologic measurements and associated water budget with the two species.  This information is useful as a contribution toward measurement of the hydrologic influences of land use change toward plantation forests.

Major Comments:

The tables and figures were appropriate for communicating the results.  Figure 1 would be improved by including a third scale image or update to main frame that provides a larger scale representation of each catchment with elevation contour lines to show topographic influences.  Figure 1 has a legend that is larger than the actual objective of the map, the watersheds.  Re-balance this figure.

Section 3.2.2 on seasonal variation is well presented by table on line 364.  The text only repeats what can be read in the table.  Avoid restating what the reader can see in the Table, rather focus on the some of the key results and interactions to lead the reader to greater understanding of the seasonal variations.

The discussion section is the weakest part of the manuscript.  Many of the statements made needed greater descriptions or support from other studies.  For example interpretation on the greater length of time for pine to develop.  I did not see any results that supported this, rather you show 6 years of similar ET values.  This interpretation likely came for other studies that should be cited.  The manuscript concludes on importance of these measurements toward water security particularly associated with climate change.  Some discussion on how the results assist with this in the discussion would improve the manuscript. 

 

Specific comments:

Figures 2-5 presentation can be improved.  Suggest that larger type, more similar with text be used for legend and axis titles.  Drop the border line around frames.  Use the same font as the text. 

There were two Table 5.  Table 1,2, and 6 were out of proportion to text and other tables.

Line 24, period missing at end of sentence

Line 28 delete were investigated

Line 36 delete flows

Line 66 start sentence with “Evapotranspiration is one of the….”  Put the [10] annotation at the end of the sentence. 

Section 2.1.2 and Table 2.  I was intrigued that your soil depths were so shallow.  Please explain what the mean depth means.  Is this only top soil?  Is this depth to an impervious bedrock?  Some explanation of what occurs with sub-surface below these depths would help frame the hydrologic setting.

The land use and vegetation section should be more explicit on the age of the plantations.  If six years of study are the pine plantations 31 years of age at the end?  The eucalypt is only stated as under 15 years of age.  Does this mean some of the plantation is only 1 year old?  In six years of study were the stands still less than 15 years in age?  Perhaps the range of the dominant age classes would meet this concern.

Line 173 What is a cut-throat flume, maybe provide a citation?

Line 189  2.5 cm?  add the units associated with 2.5.

Line 189 I was concerned about the 2.5 and 7.5 cm placement of soil moisture.  This does not seem to be appropriate rooting depths for pine or eucalypts, therefore not representative of their water use.  Perhaps a statement of justification for these shallow depths. 

Line 214  the assumption of 5% groundwater seepage creates uncertainty in your interpretations.  Provide a little more background from other study or from the cited study, for example on average 5% with a range found in the cited study.  How does affect later interpretations, perhaps include this in discussions.

Line 280 change displayed to display

Line 284 delete amount

Line 447 factor should be defined, precipitation to streamflow factor?

Author Response

Please find enclosed the point-by-point response to the reviewer 3 comments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx