Impact of Climate Change and Consumptive Demands on the Performance of São Francisco River Reservoirs, Brazil
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled “Impact of climate change and consumptive demands on the performance of São Francisco River reservoirs, Brazil.” reports on the impact of climate change and consumptive demands. The results are explained enough. Some comments are below.
-Please add more results in the abstract section. The current form is not enough.
-Please explain “naturalized and withdraw streamflow”.
-Please more literature on consumptive demands based on future scenarios.
-Please discuss the implications of the results, including how the findings relate to previous studies.
-What are the limitations of this study, related data accuracy, model accuracy, etc?
Author Response
The authors are grateful for the suggestions, comments and corrections, as they contributed significantly to this study. All were attended to, as follows:
|
Comments/ Corrections/ Suggestions |
Respostas |
|
-Please add more results in the abstract section. The current form is not enough. |
The results of the anomalies, demands and performance indexes of the reservoirs were added to the summary, highlighting the magnitudes and the reservoirs that stood out. |
|
-Please explain “naturalized and withdraw streamflow”. |
That term “withdraw streamflow” was corrected to “regularized streamflow” along with an explanation and for the term “naturalized streamflow” an explanation was added on line 120, when the term appears for the first time in the text. |
|
-Please more literature on consumptive demands based on future scenarios.. |
References to consumption demands based on future scenarios were added in the introduction (lines 62 to 72). |
|
-Please discuss the implications of the results, including how the findings relate to previous studies. |
The relationship of the results obtained in this study with others that made use of the set of scenarios of Climate Change and increased water demand was added to the topic of discussion (see lines 617 to 622). |
|
-What are the limitations of this study, related data accuracy, model accuracy, etc? |
Uncertainties were cited in the conclusion (see lines 663 to 671). |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript "Impact of climate change and consumptive demands on the performance of São Francisco River reservoirs, Brazil " is submitted as a full research article and deals with a very interesting subject to scholars in the field. This study proposes an evaluation method to consider the combined impact of climate change and water demand on the performance of São Francisco River reservoirs in Brazil, and also gives specific countermeasures. Therefore, this manuscript provides new ideas and solutions for addressing the challenges posed by climate change and increasing water demand on multi-use reservoir systems. Also, the manuscript’s technical presentation and organization are well-written. However, there are some problems, which must be solved before it is considered for publication. If the following problems are well-addressed, this reviewer believes that the essential contribution of this manuscript is important for relevant research.
Major issues:
(1) Lines 117-118: The monthly PET series were obtained with the Hargreaves-Sammani method. However, the calculation of PET with this method mainly considers temperature, which may affect readers' understanding of the research results and their trustworthiness.
(3) How are the initial values for soil moisture content (TUin) and base flow (EBin) obtained? The authors do not give a specific explanation.
(3) The climate models and scenarios used in the study are limited and may not fully reflect future climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.
(4) Although the study proposed some solutions, these solutions have not been tested or evaluated in practice, so their feasibility and effectiveness have yet to be proven.
Minor issues:
Why is there a period after the title? I can't understand it.
Author Response
The authors are grateful for the suggestions, comments and corrections, as they contributed significantly to this study. All were attended to, as follows:
|
Comments/ Corrections/ Suggestions |
Answers |
|
(1) Lines 117-118: The monthly PET series were obtained with the Hargreaves-Sammani method. However, the calculation of PET with this method mainly considers temperature, which may affect readers' understanding of the research results and their trustworthiness.
|
In fact, the Hargreaves-Sammani method brings greater uncertainty to the results than the Penman-Monteith method, which uses several input variables. The use of the Hargreaves-Sammani method was due to the scarcity of data that made the use of the Penman-Monteith method unfeasible. Furthermore, studies have shown that the Hargreaves-Sammani method differs little from the Penman-Monteith method. This justification was added in lines 139 to 144. |
|
(2) How are the initial values for soil moisture content (TUin) and base flow (EBin) obtained? The authors do not give a specific explanation.
|
In general, the values must be adjusted within an established range of the initial baseflow values (Ebin, in m³/s), surface runoff (Supin, in m³/s) and soil moisture content (Tuin, dimensionless ), in addition to the observed precipitation. |
|
(3) The climate models and scenarios used in the study are limited and may not fully reflect future climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. |
Uncertainties were cited in the conclusion (see lines 663 to 671). |
|
(4) Although the study proposed some solutions, these solutions have not been tested or evaluated in practice, so their feasibility and effectiveness have yet to be proven. |
I agree and this information has been added to the conclusions (sse lines 671 to 673). |
|
Why is there a period after the title? I can't understand it. |
was withdrawn. |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
