Using satellite-based evapotranspiration estimates to improve  the structure of a simple conceptual rainfall&ndash;runoff model

Roy, Tirthankar; Gupta, Hoshin V.; Serrat-Capdevila, Aleix; Valdes, Juan B.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-879-2017

Articles | Volume 21, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-879-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-879-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 21, issue 2

Research article

|

14 Feb 2017

Research article |

| 14 Feb 2017

Using satellite-based evapotranspiration estimates to improve the structure of a simple conceptual rainfall–runoff model

Tirthankar Roy, Hoshin V. Gupta, Aleix Serrat-Capdevila, and Juan B. Valdes

Download

Final revised paper (published on 14 Feb 2017)
Preprint (discussion started on 23 Aug 2016)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Referee comment to hess-2016-413', Abdolreza Bahremand, 12 Sep 2016
- RC2: 'Related to the Referee comment', Abdolreza Bahremand, 15 Sep 2016
  - AC1: 'Response to Referee #1', Tirthankar Roy, 05 Oct 2016
RC3: 'Using Satellite-based evapotranspiration estimates to improve the structure of a simple conceptual rainfall-runoff model', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Sep 2016
- AC2: 'Response to Referee #2', Tirthankar Roy, 05 Oct 2016
AC3: 'Revised Manuscript', Tirthankar Roy, 05 Oct 2016
AC4: 'Author Comments: General', Tirthankar Roy, 13 Oct 2016
SC1: 'Incorporation of satellite-based AET into conceptual hydrologic modeling framework', Pablo Durán-Barroso, 14 Oct 2016
- AC5: 'Reply to Pablo Durán-Barroso', Tirthankar Roy, 14 Oct 2016
SC2: 'A short comment on “Using Satellite-Based Evapotranspiration Estimates to Improve the Structure of a Simple Conceptual Rainfall-Runoff Model” by Tirthankar Roy et al', Tao Liu, 14 Oct 2016
- AC6: 'Reply to Tao Liu', Tirthankar Roy, 14 Oct 2016
SC3: 'Short Comments', Wei Si, 16 Oct 2016
- AC7: 'Reply to Wei Si', Tirthankar Roy, 17 Oct 2016
SC4: 'short comment', Michael Tso, 18 Oct 2016
- AC8: 'Reply to Michael Tso', Tirthankar Roy, 18 Oct 2016
RC4: 'referee report', Anonymous Referee #3, 04 Nov 2016
- AC10: 'Response to Referee #3', Tirthankar Roy, 06 Nov 2016
SC5: 'Short Comment on hess-2016-413', Rajarshi Mukherjee, 05 Nov 2016
- AC9: 'Reply to Rajarshi Mukherjee', Tirthankar Roy, 06 Nov 2016

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by Editor and Referees) (22 Nov 2016) by Patricia Saco

AR by Tirthankar Roy on behalf of the Authors (24 Nov 2016) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (08 Dec 2016) by Patricia Saco

RR by Abdolreza Bahremand (23 Dec 2016)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Dear authors,
I congratulate you for this good research again. You have presented a good example of dignostic structural improvement of a model. Your revised manuscript is very much improved. Everything was convincing to me, and things are much organized now. I thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments, the paper very much improved after you revised it according to the comments. While reading the text for the final time, I found out few tiny things for correction. I listed them here, you may consider them as well:

1. The four cases (A, B, C, and D) are given in capital letters everywhere except in the first table. So, you may please capitalize them in Table 1 too.
2. BE is not given in the table 5, while in the appendix A says so! It has been given in Table 1 and the last table located in the appendix B, but not the table 5. So, please correct this in Appendix A, line 19.
3. In Fig 6, the scatter plot, the axes should be exactly the same. If possible then them identical please. Although some would say that beauty is not only in symmetry, but I would say so :)
4. In page 8 in the last paragraph, you have written about CSMA. You have introduced this variable as C in the appendix A which is understandable. But you had better mention the CSMA in the appendix A as well (in the appendix, we have C, Cint, Cbeg and Cmax too). You can do this in the line 6 of the appendix in the parenthesis given for the state variable or wherever you would think it is possible.
5. Page 15, in the first line, in the parenthesis, it should be Case-D instead of Case-C.
6. Page 21, in line 34, there is a repetition of the word "improve" in one sentence, you may use another word for the second usage of "improve".

I am sorry that I could not write the indices properly in the list above (e.g, for the Csma).
Thank you,
Best regards,
Abdolreza Bahremand

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (09 Jan 2017)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (17 Jan 2017)

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (20 Jan 2017) by Patricia Saco

AR by Tirthankar Roy on behalf of the Authors (21 Jan 2017) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

This study presents and compares two different approaches to using satellite-derived estimates of actual evapotranspiration (ET) to improve the performance of a conceptual rainfall–runoff model. In the first approach, the ET process within the model is constrained using the satellite ET estimates, while in the second one, the model structure is altered. Results indicate that both the approaches improve streamflow forecasting, while the second one also improves the ET simulations significantly.