|General comments |
Review for -“A physically-based distributed karst hydrological model (QMG model-V1.0) for flood simulations” by Ji Li et.
It is well known that numerical simulation of karst groundwater is very difficult. Because of the complex karst basin subsurface conditions and spatially anisotropic karst water-bearing medias, it is a great challenge to quantitatively describe the transport and transformation patterns of karst groundwater. This study proposed a distributed hydrological model- QMG model for flood simulation and prediction in karst regions. This QMG model is a karst groundwater numerical model with potential application value, and the reasonable flood simulation results proved the accuracy and applicability of the model. The main innovation of this study is that a new karst model (QMG model-V1.0) is proposed and good flood simulation results are obtained. In addition, I am interested in the fact that the code of this model is very simple and easy to operate. Through my own modeling test, I used the modeling data in the case provided by the author to complete the construction and trial operation of the QMG model, and obtained satisfactory flood simulation results, which proved the effectiveness of the model. However,there are some language and writing problems that hinder readability and fluency of this paper, and I think the current version needs some minor revisions before it can be published in the GMD journal.
1) Language and writing problems
There are some English language problems in the current manuscript, including wrong words, grammar and inappropriate technical terms. For instance, “forecasting” is used many times in the paper, and I think the potential use of this new QMG model is better written as a “prediction” based on the simulation results of this study. It is suggested that the authors find a hydrologist who is a native English speaker to help revise the language and writing problems of the whole paper.
It is suggested to add some technical indexes to evaluate the performance of the new model in the abstract, so as to better reflect the effect of the QMG model in karst flood simulations.
“Simulation and forecasting of karst floods” should be replaced by “Simulation and prediction of karst floods”.
I read through the whole text and found that the latest literature cited by the authors is only from 2021. In the last two years 2020-2022 many hydrologists have also published some important literature on theoretical development and application of hydrological models in karst areas, and I suggest the authors to add several representative ones to the Introduction and the References lists. For instance,
Masciopinto, C., Passarella, G., Caputo, M. C., Masciale, R, & Carlo, L. D.. (2021). Hydrogeological models of water flow and pollutant transport in karstic and fractured reservoirs. Water Resources Research, 57.
Zhang, H.. (2021). Characterization of a multi-layer karst aquifer through analysis of tidal fluctuation. Journal of Hydrology, 601, 126677.
Gautama, R.S., Notosiswoyo, S., Zen, M. T., & Kusumayudha, S. B.. (2021). Mathematical model of fractal conduits flow mechanics in the gunungsewu karst area, yogyakarta special region, indonesia. International Journal of Hydrology Science and Technology, 1(1), 1.
Y Chang, Hartmann, A., Liu, L., Jiang, G., & Wu, J.. (2021). Identifying more realistic model structures by electrical conductivity observations of the karst spring. Water Resources Research.
5) Study area and data
“2.3 data” should be replaced by “2.3 Modeling Data”. Considering that the audience of the article may not be hydrology professionals, it is recommended that the author try to put himself in the position of a lay reader when writing, so as to ensure that the written paper can be easily read and understood.
The parentheses in formula 1 are not formatted properly and need to be rewritten.
“3.1.2 Runoff generation” should be replaced by “3.1.2 Runoff generation algorithms”.
“3.1.3 Channel routing and confluence” should be replaced by “3.1.3 Confluence algorithms”.
7) Results and discussion
It is recommended to write these two parts separately, means 4 Results and 5 Discussion.