DECIPHeR v1: Dynamic fluxEs and ConnectIvity for Predictions of HydRology

Coxon, Gemma; Freer, Jim; Lane, Rosanna; Dunne, Toby; Knoben, Wouter J. M.; Howden, Nicholas J. K.; Quinn, Niall; Wagener, Thorsten; Woods, Ross

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2285-2019

Articles | Volume 12, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2285-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2285-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 12, issue 6

Model description paper

|

14 Jun 2019

Model description paper |

| 14 Jun 2019

DECIPHeR v1: Dynamic fluxEs and ConnectIvity for Predictions of HydRology

Gemma Coxon, Jim Freer, Rosanna Lane, Toby Dunne, Wouter J. M. Knoben, Nicholas J. K. Howden, Niall Quinn, Thorsten Wagener, and Ross Woods

Download

Final revised paper (published on 14 Jun 2019)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 24 Sep 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Comments on gmd-2018-205', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Oct 2018
RC2: 'Referee comments', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Nov 2018
AC1: 'Response to Reviewer 1 and 2', Gemma Coxon, 15 Mar 2019

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Gemma Coxon on behalf of the Authors (23 Mar 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (27 Mar 2019) by Min-Hui Lo

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (08 Apr 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Comments for authors:
The authors have addressed many of the major concerns raised during the previous review, but not all to the satisfactory level. I also have a few additional comments for the authors which need to be fully addressed (listed below).

(1) For many comments, the authors have just provided a response and it appears that they have not included a clarification in the revised version of the manuscript (I assume this because they did not include a reference to the manuscript in their response). These include Reviewer 1, Comments 5, 8, 18 etc. Please ensure that these have been addressed in the revised manuscript.

(2) Comment 18 in the previous review: what are the models that directly use PET as input without simulating it? This sounds like a really crude way to do hydrological modeling, i.e., using PET as input and estimating ET unless the authors meant otherwise. Please include examples in the revised version and provide further clarifications.

(3) Figure 9: I suggest adding a line for mean and then doing the shading for 5-95th percentile. Also, please include some statistics such as RMSE, R2, and bias to quantify the uncertainty in the simulations.

(4) Comment #20 in the previous review: “outside the scope of this paper”. Why is model validation exercise outside of scope of a model development paper? I believe, that is the purpose of the paper because the paper is not driven by science questions. It is purely a model description and validation. Right? I agree that some validation is provided, but given that the bias is large for most locations (Figures 7 and 9), further investigation is warranted.

(5) Minor editorial issue; Abstract, L18: I think something like the following reads better: “which includes the capability to (1) change the representation of …” because the model doesn’t do things, it represents certain parameterizations and capabilities.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (12 Apr 2019)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (12 Apr 2019) by Min-Hui Lo

AR by Gemma Coxon on behalf of the Authors (18 Apr 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (30 Apr 2019) by Min-Hui Lo

AR by Gemma Coxon on behalf of the Authors (03 May 2019) Manuscript

Short summary

DECIPHeR (Dynamic fluxEs and ConnectIvity for Predictions of Hydrology) is a new modelling framework that can be applied from small catchment to continental scales for complex river basins. This paper describes the modelling framework and its key components and demonstrates the model’s ability to be applied across a large model domain. This work highlights the potential for catchment- to continental-scale predictions of streamflow to support robust environmental management and policy decisions.