Flood Frequency Analysis Using the Gamma Family Probability Distributions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Thank you for revising this manuscript
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
This study presents comprehensive analyses for statistical flood frequency analysis. Authors compared the performance of 6 variations of Gamma distribution and 3 parameters fitting algorithm for River in Romania. The results from this study provide recommendations for distribution and fitting algorithm for the local and regional watersheds. I only have two minor comments:
1. I didn’t follow the novelty of the new method of least squares. How does it differ from the conventional least square method? Please revise the relevant part and highlight your contribution in the Conclusion.
2. The flood frequency curves presented in this study, like Figure 7, is difficult to read. Please consider using different color and plot them in log scale.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I suggest rejecting this paper for the following reasons:
1. This is a technical report rather than a research paper. The research question (hypothesis) is missing and the importance of performing such a comparison is not well defined.
2. This is not a “Regional Flood Frequency Analysis (RFFA)” at all. The methodology and the case study in this paper indicate that it is an “At-site” flood frequency analysis. RFFA typically requires collecting flood peaks from a homogeneous region rather than one single watershed. By “space-for-time” substitution, one can enlarger the sample size which thus benefits the credibility of fitted parameters. Also, RFFA can help estimate the flood quantiles for ungauged basins.
3. The results performed in this study (mainly Figure 7) cannot determine the performance of Gamma distributions. The estimated flood quantiles among different Gamma distributions resemble each other and observed plotting position whereas differ for the lower exceedance probability (<1%). However, authors do not have observations to validate the estimated flood magnitudes with the lower exceedance probability. To do so, author should find a gage with a relatively long record (>50 years), and hide the first 20 years, to perform FFA. Then compare with the FFA using the full data. This will show which Gamma distribution outperform others.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The work done by the authors are one kind of basic work.
The article may be accepted in present form
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Here author used Gamma family for flood frequency analysis; why not other method. Here only three parameters are considered for analysis; is there any specific reason for that, if yes kindly mention.
2. Author must add quantitative value of result in abstract section.
3. Why author used this specific study area (Ialomita river location – Tandarei hydrometric station) for research purposes; why not other station.
4. Author must add source of data, quantify of data and frequency of data in application of hydrologic station data section.
5. Author must add study flow chart for clear visualization of manuscript.
6. Author must add statistical analysis of data with graphical format.
7. In statistical parameters (Table 1); author must add reference to cite.
8. Author must add reference of every formula used in the manuscript (Nash Sutcliffe coefficient and Kling-Gupta coefficient)
9. Author must add PBIAS and error analysis for evaluation of model
10. Please modify objective section for clear understanding
11. Comparison statement must be added in the result and discussion section for better visualization of proposed research.
12. Author must add future scope in the last portion of the manuscript.
13. Advantage and limitation of the proposed model must be added
14. For better analysis of result author must add Taylor diagram and histogram plot
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript used six probability distributions from the Gamma family with three parameters, for the flood frequency analysis in the Ialomita River, Romania. LSM, MOM, and L-moment methods were used and compared for parameter estimation. The paper concluded that the stability of the curves is better for the parameter estimation with the L-moments method compared to the MOM. In the reviewer's opinion, the manuscript has no contribution and only employed available statistical knowledge. It does not provide new information on Hydrology. Most of the manuscript repeats statistical materials available in different textbooks.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Although the title includes the word "regional", the authors does not sufficiently explain regionalization. If they want to use the words "reginal flood frequency analysis", they should mention techniques of regionalization more.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the authors' response for my comments, which address all my previous questions. I will recommend this manuscript to be accepted in present form.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for revising this manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
The author's response to my earlier is not convincing. In my opinion, this article is not of interest to hydrologists and I cannot see any contribution to flood frequency analysis/hydrology in this work.
