Shifts in stream hydrochemistry in responses to typhoon and non-typhoon precipitation

Chang, Chung-Te; Huang, Jr-Chuan; Wang, Lixin; Shih, Yu-Ting; Lin, Teng-Chiu

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-2379-2018

Articles | Volume 15, issue 8

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-2379-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-2379-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 8

Research article

|

19 Apr 2018

Research article |

| 19 Apr 2018

Shifts in stream hydrochemistry in responses to typhoon and non-typhoon precipitation

Chung-Te Chang, Jr-Chuan Huang, Lixin Wang, Yu-Ting Shih, and Teng-Chiu Lin

Download

Final revised paper (published on 19 Apr 2018)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 16 Oct 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of Chang et al., Shifts in stream hydrochemistry in responses to typhoon and non- typhoon precipitation, submitted to Biogeosciences', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Dec 2017
- AC1: 'Authors' responses to RC1's general comments', Teng-Chiu Lin, 27 Jan 2018
RC2: 'Anonymous Referee #2', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jan 2018
- AC2: 'Authors' responses to RC2's all comments', Teng-Chiu Lin, 27 Jan 2018

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (27 Jan 2018) by Paul Stoy

AR by Teng-Chiu Lin on behalf of the Authors (31 Jan 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (02 Feb 2018) by Paul Stoy

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (20 Feb 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I appreciate the authors' efforts to incorporate the suggestions. A few more comments.

Modeling discharge is a viable approach in this case. That being said, it is not clear to me how the model was calibrated. Was the model calibrated on the discharge from the two nearby gauged stations mentioned in the first version of the manuscript? If so, when transferring the calibration parameters to the four ungauged watersheds, were the differences in land use taken into account or was the model run with the same parameter set for all four watersheds? If the same parameter set was used for all four watersheds, then the authors might not gain much from modeling streamflow using HBV vs simply applying the drainage-area ratio method. The authors need to elaborate on the model calibration.

Runoff ratios are included now but it appears they might not be as helpful as I initially thought. First off, the runoff ratios aren't discussed much. The authors state that "The weekly runoff ratio was negatively related to precipitation quantity", which of course does not make much sense. The reason this appears to be the case is-and the authors identify this correctly-because the time interval is very short and sometimes little precipitation fell in a one-week period, so that runoff from baseflow were larger than the fallen precipitation. On such short time steps the baseflow would have to be removed in order to make the runoff ratio values meaningful. At this stage, the runoff ratio analysis unfortunately does not add much to the paper. I would suspect that with baseflow removed, a clearer separation between typhoon and non-typhoon periods would emerge.

The added discussion on the typhoon vs. non-typhoon periods is fairly rudimentary/obvious in parts but does provide some nice context with other studies from the region.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (24 Feb 2018)

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (24 Feb 2018) by Paul Stoy

AR by Teng-Chiu Lin on behalf of the Authors (11 Mar 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (14 Mar 2018) by Paul Stoy

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (01 Apr 2018)

ED: Publish as is (02 Apr 2018) by Paul Stoy

AR by Teng-Chiu Lin on behalf of the Authors (03 Apr 2018) Manuscript

Download

Article (3822 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

Our analysis of ion input–output budget illustrates that hydrochemical responses to typhoon storms are distinctly different from those of regular storms. In addition, even mild land use change may have large impacts on nutrient exports/losses. We propose that hydrological models should separate hydrochemical processes into regular and extreme conditions to better capture the whole spectrum of hydrochemical responses to a variety of climate conditions.