Integration of Forest Growth Component in the FEST-WB Distributed Hydrological Model: The Bonis Catchment Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This attempts to couple vegetation dynamics in a distributed hydrological model so as to considr the interaction between water and plant. Specifically, the authors coupled an ecological component, including plant growth and GPP/NPP simulation, into the hydrological model FEST-WB, and applied the new model FEST-FOREST in the Bonis catchment. This study is interesting due to model development. However, the new model is not well evaluated to reflect the interaction between water and plant. The paper is readable, but it requires language editing and figure improvement. Detailed comments are listed below.

1. A few other hydrological models have integrated ecological components, such as the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). I found FEST-FOREST is quite similar to SWAT with respect to the hydrological component and the plant growth component. Then what is the difference of the FEST-FOREST?
2. In section 3, the FEST-FOREST is evaluated separately for the hydrological part and the forest growth part. Certainly, the model has good performance in runoff simulation and tree height and DBH. However, this evaluation did not show any improvement relative to the original hydrological model FEST-WB or the original FOREST model. Then what is the advantage of the FEST-FOREST?
3. The figures in the paper are not satisfactory to meet the standard of the FOREST.
4. Strongly suggest the authors improve the language and avoid mistakes throughout the paper.
5. In Eq. (27), what is cc and how to define?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for their detailed review of our manuscript and for the excellent suggestions that we received. We tried to adequately respond to each suggestion received from the Reviewer. We definitely believe that the Reviewer’s comments and suggestions have significantly improved this manuscript.

Please find below our responses to your comments and suggestions

Sincerely,

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments:

The manuscript, in general, is well mostly written and with the appropriate manuscript structure in most cases. Nevertheless, some points must be addressed. In particular:

1. Please use passive voice within the abstract and the whole manuscript.
2. Please maximize the resolution of Figure 2. It is not clear to the reader.
3. Due to the fact that the authors have used many equations, it will be truly helpful to put them all, as well, on one table at the end of the manuscript as Appendix. 
4. Please try to cite more studies within the introduction in order to strengthen your research arguments.
5. Please increase the quality of Figure 3. At this point, the second map is not readable. 
6. Is there any reason the letters in Table 1 to be italics?
7. Sensitivity analysis (3.1.1) should be part of the methodology and only the results of it should be presented within the results section (3.2.1).
8. What kind of classification did the authors use in Figure 8? What do these values (which are not readable) stand for?
9. Please separate the results-discussion sections. Each of them should be a separate section. Results should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn. Discussion should be provide the connection/review of your methodology to other works.
10. Usually, within conclusions, the authors should provide readers with a brief summary of the main conclusions. Thus this section should be rewritten. At this point is too poor and weak.
11.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for their detailed review of our manuscript and for the excellent suggestions that we received. We tried to adequately respond to each suggestion received from the Reviewer. We definitely believe that the Reviewer’s comments and suggestions have significantly improved this manuscript.

Please find below our responses to your comments and suggestions

Sincerely,

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made substantial revisions by clarifying a few concerns and improving the presentation. But the paper requires further revision to discuss the advantage of the new model.

1. I understand it is a good attempt to couple a forest modular (FOREST) with a hydrological model (FEST-WB), but this study failed to demonstrate the advantage of this coupling. The separate evaluation regarding the hydrological process and the forest growth is not necessary because the two parts have been separately evaluated in other studies. The authors explain that the coupling is the first step and the demonstration is the next. But this explanation does not present in the manuscript.

2. The introduction and the conclusions do not include relevant references. For example, the SWAT model which has integrated plant growth and hydrological processes was not mentioned in the paper.

3. Lines 678-679 state “The novelty of this paper is that existing eco-hydrological models usually simplify either the hydrological component or the forest growth component”. This is not enough to guarantee the novelty, because the SWAT has been widely used with two components.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. We sincerely thank you for the detailed review of our manuscript and for the excellent suggestions that we received.

Sincerely,

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for addressing all of my comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments.  We sincerely thank you for the detailed review of our manuscript and for the excellent suggestions that we received. 

Sincerely,

The authors.