Next Article in Journal
Groundwater Origin and Dynamics on the Eastern Flank of the Colorado River Delta, Mexico
Previous Article in Journal
Implications of a Priori Parameters on Calibration in Conditions of Varying Terrain Characteristics: Case Study of the SAC-SMA Model in Eastern United States
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Hydrology
Volume 8
Issue 2
10.3390/hydrology8020079
Review Report
hydrology-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Reservoir Sizing at Draft Level of 75% of Mean Annual Flow Using Drought Magnitude Based Method on Canadian Rivers

Hydrology 2021, 8(2), 79; https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology8020079
by Tribeni C. Sharma and Umed S. Panu *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Hydrology 2021, 8(2), 79; https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology8020079
Submission received: 19 March 2021 / Revised: 1 May 2021 / Accepted: 6 May 2021 / Published: 11 May 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study conducted an analysis of the drought magnitude (DM) method and the sequent peak algorithm (SPA) for estimating the reservoir volume at the annual, monthly and weekly scales using flow sequences of 25 Canadian rivers. The results indicated that the monthly scale is the most optimal for the estimation of reservoir volumes at the draft of 0.75 MAF. They also found that the DM based method is its ability to explicitly involve the return period in the estimation process, unlike the SPA, which yields estimates of reservoir volumes that are devoid of return periods. Overall, the paper is well written and is within the scope of journal. I suggest a minor revision before acceptance for publication. 1. L201，How to estimate the longest drought duration by the Markov chain? Please provide more detailed information about this. 2. L256, why consider a gamma PDF for the Bow River rather than other PDFs? Please clarify it. 3. L273, time scale >> time scales 4. Discussion, I suggest the authors to make a discussion for the comparison of the results of the two methods with the other previous methods.

Author Response

 

"Please see the attachment"

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations for this work. It is very constructive in my opinion and will help other researchers in this field.

Author Response

Reviewer # 2

Congratulations on this work. It is very constructive and in my opinion, will help other researchers in this field.

Authors' Response

The authors' are thankful to the reviewer for highly complimenting our research efforts and unreservedly recommending the publication of the manuscript. 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors present a well-designed and conceived methodology for flow estimation to define reservoir capacities based upon a calculated drought magnitude and frequency for Canada.  The paper builds on precious work by the authors.

Author Response

Reviewer Comments

The authors present a well-designed and conceived methodology for flow estimation to define reservoir capacities based upon a calculated drought magnitude and frequency for Canada. The paper builds on previous work by the authors.

Authors Response

We thank the reviewer for complimenting the study that builds on the past work of the authors.

 

 

Back to TopTop