A physically-based distributed karst hydrological model (QMG model-V1.0) for flood simulations

Li, Ji; Yuan, Daoxian; Zhang, Fuxi; Jiang, Yongjun; Liu, Jiao; Ma, Mingguo

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120

Preprints

Submitted as: model description paper

31 Aug 2021

Submitted as: model description paper | 31 Aug 2021

Status: a revised version of this preprint is currently under review for the journal GMD.

A physically-based distributed karst hydrological model (QMG model-V1.0) for flood simulations

Ji Li¹, Daoxian Yuan^1,2, Fuxi Zhang³, Yongjun Jiang¹, Jiao Liu⁴, and Mingguo Ma¹ Ji Li et al.

Show author details

¹Chongqing Jinfo Mountain Karst Ecosystem National Observation and Research Station, Chongqing Key Laboratory of Karst Environment, School of Geographical Sciences, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China
²Karst Dynamic Laboratory, Ministry of Land and Resources, Guilin 541004, China
³College of Engineering Science and Technology, Shanghai Ocean University; Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Marine Renewable Energy 201306, China
⁴Chongqing municipal hydrological monitoring station, Chongqing 401120, China

Received: 14 Apr 2021 – Discussion started: 31 Aug 2021

Abstract. Karst trough valleys are prone to flooding, primarily because of the unique hydrogeological features of karst landform, which are conducive to the spread of rapid runoff. Hydrological models that represent the complicated hydrological processes in karst regions are effective for predicting karst flooding, but their application has been hampered by their complex model structures and associated parameter set, especially so for distributed hydrological models, which require large amounts of hydrogeological data. Distributed hydrological models for predicting the Karst flooding is highly dependent on distributed structrues modeling, complicated boundary parameters setting, and tremendous hydrogeological data processing that is both time and computational power consuming. Proposed here is a distributed physically-based karst hydrological model, known as the QMG (Qingmuguan) model. The structural design of this model is relatively simple, and it is generally divided into surface and underground double-layered structures. The parameters that represent the structural functions of each layer have clear physical meanings, and the parameters are less than those of the current distributed models. This allows modeling in karst areas with only a small amount of necessary hydrogeological data. 18 flood processes across the karst underground river in the Qingmuguan karst trough valley are simulated by the QMG model, and the simulated values agree well with observations, for which the average value of Nash–Sutcliffe coefficient was 0.92. A sensitivity analysis shows that the infiltration coefficient, permeability coefficient, and rock porosity are the parameters that require the most attention in model calibration and optimization. The improved predictability of karst flooding by the proposed QMG model promotes a better mechanistic depicting of runoff generation and confluence in karst trough valleys.

Ji Li et al.

Status: final response (author comments only)

RC1:
'Comment on gmd-2021-120', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Sep 2021

The paper concerns a topic consistent with the aim of the GMD journal, and I really appreciate the huge work made by the authors. The presented analysis and model application could be potentially useful in karst basins. In this study, a karst hydrological model, i.e., the QMG model-V1.0 was developed for karst floods simulation and forecasting. The model itself is a valuable improvement, and what interested me was the applicability of the model in karst areas, so I went through the entire process of modeling and validating the model myself (https://zenodo.org/deposit?page=1&size=20), and the model simulation results were satisfactory. I think the subsequent research should focus on the validation study of the model in more karst areas to prove its general applicability in karst hydrological forecasting. However, there are few drawbacks affect the manuscript and have to be addressed before the paper can be published in GMD.

Specific comments

1) English needs modification

I found several incorrect words, grammar and unclear sentences, make it very difficult to understand the analysis carried out and the results obtained. The authors need to carefully correct the language errors in the whole text.

2) More information about the potential of this new model, ie.e., the QMG model-V1.0 for application in karst areas needs to be added in the Introduction part, especially the advantages and disadvantages compared to current numerical karst groundwater models.

3) In the Methodology part, the section 3.1 Hydrological model, this title is inappropriate here, as it obviously also includes the Parameter Optimization in Section 3.2 and Model Setting in 3.4. Suggest changing it to a model framework and algorithm.

4) In section 3.3 Uncertainty Analysis, it is not clear how to analyze uncertainty in input data and model structure for this new QMG model-V1.0.

Other minor comments

1) All tables should be set to three-line tables.

2) The right side of Figure 3 seems to be a photograph, please explain the necessity of its existence.

3) Each variable in Figure 5 needs to be clearly labeled as to which parameter it refers to.

4) The horizontal axis in Figure 7 represents the date, but the interval is not one-to-one with the marked time, please check that.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ji Li, 08 Oct 2021
  
  A point-by-point reply to the comments
  Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Sep 2021
  The paper concerns a topic consistent with the aim of the GMD journal, and I really appreciate the huge work made by the authors. The presented analysis and model application could be potentially useful in karst basins. In this study, a karst hydrological model, i.e., the QMG model-V1.0 was developed for karst floods simulation and forecasting. The model itself is a valuable improvement, and what interested me was the applicability of the model in karst areas, so I went through the entire process of modeling and validating the model myself (https://zenodo.org/deposit?page=1&size=20), and the model simulation results were satisfactory. I think the subsequent research should focus on the validation study of the model in more karst areas to prove its general applicability in karst hydrological forecasting. However, there are few drawbacks affect the manuscript and have to be addressed before the paper can be published in GMD.
  Specific comments
  1) English needs modification
  I found several incorrect words, grammar and unclear sentences, make it very difficult to understand the analysis carried out and the results obtained. The authors need to carefully correct the language errors in the whole text.
  2) More information about the potential of this new model, ie.e., the QMG model-V1.0 for application in karst areas needs to be added in the Introduction part, especially the advantages and disadvantages compared to current numerical karst groundwater models.
  3) In the Methodology part, the section 3.1 Hydrological model, this title is inappropriate here, as it obviously also includes the Parameter Optimization in Section 3.2 and Model Setting in 3.4. Suggest changing it to a model framework and algorithm.
  4) In section 3.3 Uncertainty Analysis, it is not clear how to analyze uncertainty in input data and model structure for this new QMG model-V1.0.
  Other minor comments
  1) All tables should be set to three-line tables.
  2) The right side of Figure 3 seems to be a photograph, please explain the necessity of its existence.
  3) Each variable in Figure 5 needs to be clearly labeled as to which parameter it refers to.
  4) The horizontal axis in Figure 7 represents the date, but the interval is not one-to-one with the marked time, please check that.
  General comment:
  The paper concerns a topic consistent with the aim of the GMD journal, and I really appreciate the huge work made by the authors. The presented analysis and model application could be potentially useful in karst basins. In this study, a karst hydrological model, i.e., the QMG model-V1.0 was developed for karst floods simulation and forecasting. The model itself is a valuable improvement, and what interested me was the applicability of the model in karst areas, so I went through the entire process of modeling and validating the model myself (https://zenodo.org/deposit?page=1&size=20), and the model simulation results were satisfactory. I think the subsequent research should focus on the validation study of the model in more karst areas to prove its general applicability in karst hydrological forecasting. However, there are few drawbacks affect the manuscript and have to be addressed before the paper can be published in GMD.
  Response:
  We greatly appreciate the reviewer's comments. The reviewer confirmed the innovation and application value of this study and pointed out the potential of the model (QMG model-V1.0) proposed in karst areas, and suggested that subsequent studies should focus on applying this new model to more karst areas to test its general applicability in karst floods forecasting.
  The next step of our research is indeed focused on model validation, for which we will build this model (QMG model-V1.0) for flood simulation and forecasting in more karst areas, and improve the model's functions and algorithms to provide its applicability and accuracy based on the application effects.
  The following is our point-by-point response to specific comments.
  Specific Comment
  1) English needs modification
  I found several incorrect words, grammar and unclear sentences, make it very difficult to understand the analysis carried out and the results obtained. The authors need to carefully correct the language errors in the whole text.
  Response:
  We have carefully revised the language errors in the full text, including incorrect words, grammar and unclear sentences, and asked a professional English editing company (Charlesworth Advanced ) to help fix the language problems in the manuscript.
  2) More information about the potential of this new model, ie.e., the QMG model-V1.0 for application in karst areas needs to be added in the Introduction part, especially the advantages and disadvantages compared to current numerical karst groundwater models.
  Response:
  More information about the advantages of the QMG model-V1.0 compared with other karst groundwater models have been added in the revised Introduction (Lines 103-115).
  3) In the Methodology part, the section 3.1 Hydrological model, this title is inappropriate here, as it obviously also includes the Parameter Optimization in Section 3.2 and Model Setting in 3.4. Suggest changing it to a model framework and algorithm.
  Response:
  This advice is very pertinent. The title of section 3.1 has been replaced by “Hydrological model framework and algorithms” accordingly (Lines 205).
  4) In section 3.3 Uncertainty Analysis, it is not clear how to analyze uncertainty in input data and model structure for this new QMG model-V1.0.
  Response:
  Uncertainty Analysis of input data and model structure have been added in the revised section 3.3 (Lines 428-446).
  Other minor comments
  1) All tables should be set to three-line tables.
  Response:
  The tables have been seted to three-line tables accordingly (Lines 938-943).
  2) The right side of Figure 3 seems to be a photograph, please explain the necessity of its existence.
  Response:
  It is a three-dimensional spatial model of KHRUs established in the laboratory to visually reflect the storage and movement of water in the karst water-bearing medium with each spatial anisotropy, and to provide technical support for the establishment of hydrological model. And this description has been added to the revised version (Lines 230-233).
  3) Each variable in Figure 5 needs to be clearly labeled as to which parameter it refers to.
  Response:
  The model parameter referred to by each variable in Figure 5 has already clearly reflected in Table 1 (Lines 938).
  4) The horizontal axis in Figure 7 represents the date, but the interval is not one-to-one with the marked time, please check that.
  Response:
  The horizontal axises in Figure 7 have been revised accordingly (Lines 965-977).
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-AC1
CC1:
'Comment on gmd-2021-120', Laurent Ailleres, 19 Oct 2021

Dear Author,
Thanks for your contribution and an interesting paper. Although I am not providing a full review, this paper does not fit the special issue under which it appears: The Loop 3D stochastic geological modelling platform – development and applications
This is not a development nor an application of the Loop platform. Please remove your contribution from the Loop special issue.
Thank you and kind regards,
Laurent

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-CC1
- CC2:
  'Reply on CC1', Ji Li, 25 Oct 2021
  
  Dear Laurent,
  I am JI LI. Thank you for the information, I may have chosen the wrong special issue at the beginning of the submission, as you say, this is not a development nor an application of the Loop platform, but I would like to know that the manuscript is currently in the GMD open discussions stage and that the reviewers have given their comments and we have responded to them. In this case, how can I remove the manuscript information from this special issue? Does the removal mean that I have to resubmit the paper? Please let me know? Thanks.
  JI LI
  Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-CC2
  - CC3: 'Reply on CC2', Laurent Ailleres, 26 Oct 2021
    
    Dear JI LI,
    I would contact your EC (Editor) who should be able to address the problem. I do hope you do not have to re-submit.
    Thank you and kind regards,
    Laurent
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-CC3
    
    CC4: 'Reply on CC3', Ji Li, 26 Oct 2021
    
    Dear Laurent,
    I am JI LI. Thank you very much for your timely reply to let me know this information. Of course, it would be best if I did not have to resubmit it. I hope so. Thank you very much for your kind help. Wish you all the best.
    Thank you and kind regards,
    JI LI
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-CC4
CC5:
'Comment on gmd-2021-120', Daan Stalenburg, 30 Oct 2021

Dear authors,
This review was prepared as part of graduate program Earth & Environment (course Integrated Topics in Earth & Environment) at Wageningen University, and has been produced under supervision of dr Ryan Teuling. The review has been posted because of its potential usefulness to the authors and editor. Although it has the format of a regular review as was requested by the course, this review was not solicited by the journal, and should be seen as a regular comment. We leave it up to the author’s and editor which points will be addressed.
with kind regards,
Daan Stalenburg

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-CC5
- CC6: 'Reply on CC5', Ji Li, 30 Oct 2021
  
  Dear Stalenburg,
  Thank you very much for your comments. Our article also belongs to the research category of the earth and the environment. Specifically, it belongs to the karst hydrological forecast in the field of geography. The karst groundwater model proposed in the article and its simulation of the flood process of underground rivers can provide key technology and method for flood control ,management, and mitigation in karst areas. At the same time, it can also provide reference for environmental issues such as the evaluation and protection of karst water resources, and has potential application reference value for you to study the environmental protection of the earth and the environment, especially in karst areas.
  yours
  JI LI
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-CC6
CC7:
'Comment on gmd-2021-120', Eva van Hofslot, 02 Nov 2021

Dear Authors,
This review was prepared as part of graduate program Earth & Environment (course Integrated Topics in Earth & Environment) at Wageningen University, and has been produced under supervision of dr Ryan Teuling. The review has been posted because of its potential usefulness to the authors and editor. Although it has the format of a regular review as was requested by the course, this review was not solicited by the journal, and should be seen as a regular comment. We leave it up to the author’s and editor which points will be addressed.
Kind regards,
Eva van Hofslot

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-CC7
- CC8: 'Reply on CC7', Ji Li, 03 Nov 2021
  
  Dear Hofslot，
  Thank you very much for your comments. And I received the same comment from your classmate Stalenburg two days ago. Here I send the same reply to you, and I hope you are satisfied with this response. Our article also belongs to the research category of the earth and the environment. Specifically, it belongs to the karst hydrological forecast in the field of geography. The karst groundwater model proposed in the article and its simulation of the flood process of underground rivers can provide key technology and method for flood control ,management, and mitigation in karst areas. At the same time, it can also provide reference for environmental issues such as the evaluation and protection of karst water resources, and has potential application reference value for you to study the environmental protection of the earth and the environment, especially in karst areas.
  yours
  JI LI
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-CC8
RC2:
'Comment on gmd-2021-120', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Feb 2022

The paper deals with implementation of a physically-based distributed karst hydrological model for flood simulations. The manuscript has several deficiencies, in part depending upon the English language and in part by problems with the scientific content.

I have a number of considerations and suggestions (presented in this comment, and in the attached file as well).

In general, the English language seems to me not satisfying the international standards for publication in several points, and needs some deep revision. In particular, I pointed out in the attached file some parts where the English was unclear to me.

Authors are probably not very familiar with karst literature and terminology. Since they are proposing a model for floods in karst, the karst literature cannot be not taken into account. From the beginning, it is stated that the works regards “karst though valley”. This is not a term familiar to me, and I do not have seen it used in the karst literature. Thus, its meaning should be clearly defined. In addition, references to the main works and textbooks as concerns karst landforms and morphology should be added. Below you will find some suggestions at this regard.

As regards the main topic of the article, that is floods, karst settings are typically characterized by flash floods, due to the lack or scarcity of water at the surface during most of the year. This is never mentioned in the manuscript, but should deserve some mention, also to cite similar examples in other karst areas worldwide. For instance, have a look at the paper by Gutierrez et al. (2014) and the abundant references about floods in karst (Parise, 2003; Bonacci et al., 2006; Jourde et al., 2007, 2014; Martinotti et al., 2017).

Also when dealing with sinkholes, no reference to the main classification of sinkholes is provided. All this indicate a quite poor knowledge of karst, which should be addresses for an article submitted to international journals.

Suggested references for karst (general textbooks and specific articles for floods and hazards in karst):

Bonacci, O., Ljubenkov, I., Roje-Bonacci, T., 2006. Karst flash floods: an example from the Dinaric karst Croatia. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 6, 195–203.

Ford, D.C.,Williams, P., 2007. Karst Hydrogeology and Geomorphology.Wiley, Chichester, 562 pp..

Gutierrez, F., 2010. Hazards associated with karst. In: Alcantara, I. & A. Goudie (Eds.), Geomorphological Hazards and Disaster Prevention. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 161–175.

Gutierrez F., Parise M., De Waele J. & Jourde H., 2014, A review on natural and human-induced geohazards and impacts in karst. Earth Science Reviews, vol. 138, p. 61-88.

Jourde, H., Roesch, A., Guinot, V., Bailly-Comte, V., 2007. Dynamics and contribution of karst groundwater to surface flow during Mediterranean flood. Environ. Geol. 51 (5), 725–730.

Jourde, H., Lafare, A., Mazzilli, N., Belaud, G., Neppel, L., Doerfliger, N., Cernesson, F., 2014. Flash flood mitigation as a positive consequence of anthropogenic forcings on the groundwater resource in a karst catchment. Environ. Earth Sci. 71, 573–583.

Martinotti M.E., Pisano L., Marchesini I., Rossi M., Peruccacci S., Brunetti M.T., Melillo M., Amoruso G., Loiacono P., Vennari C., Vessia G., Trabace M., Parise M., & Guzzetti F., 2017, Landslides, floods and sinkholes in a karst environment: the 1–6 September 2014 Gargano event, southern Italy. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, vol. 17, p. 467-480.

Palmer, A.N., 2007. Cave Geology. Cave Books, Dayton, 454 pp..

Palmer, A.N., 2010. Understanding the hydrology of karst. Geol. Croat. 63, 143–148.

Parise, M., 2003. Flood history in the karst environment of Castellana-Grotte (Apulia, southern Italy). Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 3 (6), 593–604.

Parise, M., 2010, Hazards in karst, Proceedings Int. Conf. “Sustainability of the karst environment. Dinaric karst and other karst regions”, IHP-Unesco, Series on Groundwater, 2, 155-162.

Parise M., Ravbar N., Å½ivanovic V., Mikszewski A., Kresic N., Mádl-Szo Ìnyi J. & Kukuric N., 2015, Hazards in Karst and Managing Water Resources Quality. Chapter 17 in: Z. Stevanovic (ed.), Karst Aquifers – Characterization and Engineering. Professional Practice in Earth Sciences, Springer, pp. 601-687.

White, W.B., 1988. Geomorphology and Hydrology of Karst Terrains. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 464 pp.

White, W.B., 2002. Karst hydrology: recent developments and open questions. Eng. Geol. 65, 85–105.

Williams, P.W., 2008. The role of the epikarst in karst and cave hydrogeology: a review. Int. J. Speleol. 37, 1–10.

Zhou W, Beck BF (2011) Engineering issues on karst. In: P. van Beynen (Ed), Karst Management. Springer, Dordrecht, 9-45.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ji Li, 22 Feb 2022
  
  Dear reviewer:
  We greatly appreciate the reviewer's comments. The reviewer point out that there are two major deficiencies in this manuscript, in part depending upon the English language errors and in part by the scientific content problems. We have carefully revised the problems pointed out by the reviewer. Our point-by-point response to specific comments can be found in the supplement (a point-by-point reply to the comments, a marked-up manuscript and the final paper). Many thanks for helping to review the manuscript and best wishes!
  JI LI
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-AC2

Ji Li et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 1,111 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
871	199	41	1,111	8	7

HTML: 871
PDF: 199
XML: 41
Total: 1,111
BibTeX: 8
EndNote: 7

Views and downloads (calculated since 31 Aug 2021)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Aug 2021	22	4	0	26
Sep 2021	149	37	6	192
Oct 2021	142	28	14	184
Nov 2021	104	30	2	136
Dec 2021	83	23	7	113
Jan 2022	75	15	1	91
Feb 2022	93	18	6	117
Mar 2022	57	12	2	71
Apr 2022	62	19	0	81
May 2022	45	6	2	53
Jun 2022	39	7	1	47

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 31 Aug 2021)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Aug 2021	22	4	0	26
Sep 2021	149	37	6	192
Oct 2021	142	28	14	184
Nov 2021	104	30	2	136
Dec 2021	83	23	7	113
Jan 2022	75	15	1	91
Feb 2022	93	18	6	117
Mar 2022	57	12	2	71
Apr 2022	62	19	0	81
May 2022	45	6	2	53
Jun 2022	39	7	1	47

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,029 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,029 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 26 Jun 2022

Short summary

1. A physically-based distributed QMG model is effectively devoloped. 2. This model requires only a small amount of data for modelling in karst areas. 3. Eighteen satisfactory flood simulation results indicate this QMG model is feasible. 4. An improved chaotic particle swarm optimization algorithm is effective for parameter optimization.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0