the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Energy efficiency in transient surface runoff and sediment fluxes on hillslopes – a concept to quantify the effectiveness of extreme events
Abstract. Surface runoff over time shapes the morphology of the landscape. The resulting forms and patterns have been shown to follow distinct rules, which hold throughout almost all terrestrial catchments. Given the complexity and variety of the earth’s runoff processes, those findings have inspired researchers for over a century, and they resulted in many principles and sometimes proclaimed laws to explain the physics that govern the evolution of landforms and river networks. Most of those point to the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, which describe conservation and dissipation of free energy through fluxes depleting their driving gradients. Here we start with both laws but expand the related principles to explain the coevolution of surface runoff and hillslope morphology by using measurable hydraulic and hydrological variables. We argue that a release of the frequent assumption of steady states is key, as the maximum work that surface runoff can perform on the sediments relates not only to the surface structure but also to “refueling” of the system with potential energy by rainfall events. To account for both factors, we introduce the concept of relative dissipation, relating frictional energy dissipation to the energy influx, which essentially characterises energy efficiency of the hillslope when treated as an open, dissipative power engine. Generally, we find that such a hillslope engine is energetically rather inefficient, although the well-known Carnot limit does not apply here, as surface runoff is not driven by temperature differences. Given the transient and intermittent behaviour of rainfall runoff, we explore the transient free energy balance with respect to energy efficiency, comparing typical hillslope forms that represent a sequence of morphological stages and dominant erosion processes. In a first part, we simulate three rainfall-runoff scenarios by numerically solving the shallow water equations and we analyse those in terms of relative dissipation. The results suggest that older hillslope forms, where advective soil wash erosion dominates, are less efficient than younger forms which relate to diffusive erosion regimes. In the second part of this study, we use the concept of relative dissipation to analyse two observed rainfall runoff extremes in the small rural Weiherbach catchment. Both flood events are extreme, with estimated return periods of 10000 years and produced considerable erosion. Using a previously calibrated, distributed physics-based model, we analyse the free energy balance of surface runoff simulated for the 169 model hillslopes and determine the work that was performed on the eroded sediments. This reveals, that relative dissipation is largest on hillslope forms which relate to diffusive soil creep erosion, and lowest for hillslope profiles relating to advective soil wash erosion. We also find that power in surface runoff and power in the complementary infiltration flux are during both events almost identical. Moreover, there is a clear hierarchy of work, which surface runoff expended on the sediments and relative dissipation between characteristic hillslope clusters. For hillslope forms that are more energy efficient in producing surface-runoff, on average a larger share of the free energy of surface runoff performs work on the sediments (detachment and transport) and vice versa. We thus conclude that the energy efficiency of overland flow during events does indeed constrain erosional work and the degree of freedom for morphological changes. We conjecture that hillslope forms and overland dynamics coevolve, triggered by an overshoot in power during intermittent rainfall runoff events, towards a decreasing energy efficiency in overland flow. This implies a faster depletion of energy gradients during events, and a stepwise downregulation of the available power to trigger further morphological development.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(3197 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3197 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1301', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Jan 2023
In this research article, the authors explore the physical laws governing surface runoff’s effects on the geomorphology of hillslopes. This article takes as a starting point a research article previously published, the main difference being that the previous study considers steady-state conditions. This study formulates the free energy balance of transient surface runoff on hillslopes and analyzes the temporal evolution of some of the terms of the energy balance. Then, the study analyzes two extreme events under the previously introduced framework. The objective, as well as the novelty of the article are clear, and the methods employed are well justified.
My only concern is regarding the clarity and readability of the document. The topic of the study is indeed complex; however, some parts could be explained more clearly.
- Maybe I didn’t understand completely but in lines 368-369 you write “In the presented transient framework, an influx of energy may either lead to an increase of stored potential energy, an increase of kinetic energy, or an increase of the outflux of kinetic energy (Fig. 1).” Why are you disregarding the dissipation term here?
- If someone tries to replicate your numerical experiments of Section 3, would they require additional information? (e.g., manning coefficient, dimensions of the simulated domain, discretization sizes). Could you please include this information in the document?
- Is there any connection between the manning coefficient and dissipation?
- Figure 11 shows that for some hillslopes the dissipation at 3 hours is negative. How do you interpret/justify this result?
Please, also consider the following comments/suggestions:
- In lines 257 and 258 the formulation for relative energy stored and relative energy flux are incorrect since the integration symbol should be written in numerator and denominator.
- Please, define the symbols of the equations, for example, Eq. 8 and 13.
- In Figure 3, the integration over time is depicted in yellow.
- Include a sentence with the definition of stream power.
- Include the meaning of subindices f and sp in the equations of the appendix.
- Explain the quantities reported in Table 1.
- Why do you write that both events lie “well above the 10000-year flood of 3.3cms” (line 480) and in Table 1 you write 3.2 for event 2?
- Line 532 refers to Table 1. Why? Why 8%?
- Line 539: Is correct the reference to Eq. 6 and 7?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1301-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Samuel Schroers, 18 Feb 2023
We thank the anonymous reviewer for his thorough examination and constructive critique of some of the points we made in this article.
The reviewer correctly points out that the focus of our preceding study and the study at hand lies on dissipation of free energy. This already partly explains the reviewers comment regarding a definition of stream power, which from our point of view is the magnitude of potential energy (of water) that is being converted into other forms of energy per unit time. It is correct that we have made a mistake in Fig. 1, where we neglected the dissipation term, we will correct this in a revised manuscript.
Eq. 2 outlines, that dissipation is converted energy (stream power) minus the amount of energy which remains in the form of kinetic energy. Stream power alone therefore informs about the magnitudes of energy that is being converted, together with kinetic energy (and other remaining free energy which we have not considered in this study, e.g., turbulent kinetic energy) one can assess the efficiency of the conversion of a free energy gradient to flow, the movement of water.
This points to the next comment from the reviewer regarding the Manning coefficient, which currently is for most applications the only way to pinpoint this efficiency that scales dissipation. Any parameter which characterizes roughness is ultimately related to the conversion process of free energy to heat, describing the capacity of the system to create flow from a gradient of free energy. In fact, expressing this in steady state as the flux of kinetic energy over stream power with a formula that links average flow velocity and driving gradient such as the Manning equation we can derive a formula which describes the efficiency of a system to convert a gradient of free energy into kinetic energy as a function of geometry (hydraulic radius) and roughness (see supplement).
This leads again to our argumentation that to understand the evolution of the dynamics of flow, e.g., in a geomorphological context for erosion of hillslopes, we need to understand the evolution of efficiencies. We argue that the underlying driving process for evolution of the structure of a system does not depend on the physical parameter of roughness but on dissipation itself.
The comment from the author regarding negative dissipation of a single hillslope in Fig. 11 is correct. We traced this to the implementation of very shallow flows in the numerical scheme, an error we will correct by allowing smaller minimum water depths for movement of water.
Regarding the rest of the comments from the reviewer we thank her/him for the thorough inspection and will gladly incorporate the suggestions regarding readability and clarity.
We thank the reviewer for his effort and comments.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1301', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Mar 2023
I provide my comments in the attached document.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Samuel Schroers, 12 Apr 2023
We thank the anonymous reviewer for his detailed analysis of our study. Her/his comments are straight to the point and touch the core motivation of this research.
We would like to answer comments 1 and 2 in one paragraph, as we believe both are related and belong together:
The reviewer correctly highlights that the calculated dissipation term does not differentiate between the type of dissipation, be it the creation of turbulence, the lift or the transport of sediment particles. First, we would like to point to our previous publication (Schroers et al., 2022) and in particular to the discussion we had with Keith Beven regarding the same issue (https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-479-RC1). Among other things we presented in https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-479-AC2 an extension of our theoretical framework to distinguish the energy, which is spent on erosion, but this usually goes beyond what is possible to reliably represent with field data. There are however several studies (e.g. Emmett, 1970) which estimated the type of flow regime (laminar or turbulent) on which we have elaborated in our previous study. Maybe the most interesting result is that the build-up of free energy seems to be related to laminar flow and the decrease to turbulence. As turbulence is further related to higher erosion rates, we hypothesized that the occurrence of erosional structures such as rills or gullies can be pinpointed by the free energy content of surface runoff.
On a larger scale the hillslope itself is shaped into a certain form (SC or SW), typically by intermittent surface runoff events. This led us to the idea to analyze transient events in the study at hand. We therefore defined energy efficiency of a hillslope in line with energy efficiency of a mechanical machine, the output of free energy divided by the input of free energy. A more efficient surface runoff event is therefore one which allows a larger fraction of the input energy to be conserved in the energy output. Our results show that for transient events higher efficiency typically relates to SC hillslope types and lower efficiency to SW hillslope types. In a second step we argue that a higher efficiency is downregulated through erosion to smaller efficiency (the typical evolution of hillslopes from SC to SW forms). Section 4.4 shows that this reasoning does indeed apply to the hillslopes and surface runoff events in the Weiherbach catchment. Higher relative dissipation (SW forms, less efficiency) relates to less erosion and smaller relative dissipation relates to more erosion (SC forms, higher efficiency). It is therefore correct that we made a wording mistake in line 609-611, we will correct this sentence.
Comment 3:
We agree with the reviewer, ideally the hillslope should coevolve with the transient event. However, it was shown elsewhere (e.g. Kirkby, 1971) that hillslopes generally evolve from SC to SW profiles. In this perspective our tests consider only the beginning and the end of this evolution and we subsequently present the different energy fluxes in the presented thermodynamic framework. Our approach is therefore a simplification to highlight the differences between the start and the end point and provide a thermodynamic explanation to the direction of such hillslope evolution.
Comment 4:
We thank the reviewer for pointing out that infiltration could potentially have a large effect on the presented framework. In theory high infiltration rates would decrease the free energy of surface runoff, but at the same time it would increase the free energy of subsurface water. In this study we put our focus on surface runoff events, but the free energy content of subsurface water could certainly correlate with observed hillslope forms. As we also point out in line 546-549, Zehe et al. (2013) found for the same events in the Weiherbach catchment energy conversion rates of almost the same scale for subsurface runoff as we found in surface runoff. This highlights that surface and subsurface runoff of extreme events are likely to be co-organized. Such an analysis is however beyond the scope of this work.
We further agree with the rest of the minor comments from the reviewer, and it is our intention to correct each point in a final updated version of the manuscript.
We thank the anonymous reviewer again for her/his effort and beneficial critique.
We thank the anonymous reviewer for his detailed analysis of our study. Her/his comments are straight to the point and touch the core motivation of this research.
We would like to answer comments 1 and 2 in one paragraph, as we believe both are related and belong together:
The reviewer correctly highlights that the calculated dissipation term does not differentiate between the type of dissipation, be it the creation of turbulence, the lift or the transport of sediment particles. First, we would like to point to our previous publication (Schroers et al., 2022) and in particular to the discussion we had with Keith Beven regarding the same issue (https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-479-RC1). Among other things we presented in https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-479-AC2 an extension of our theoretical framework to distinguish the energy, which is spent on erosion, but this usually goes beyond what is possible to reliably represent with field data. There are however several studies (e.g. Emmett, 1970) which estimated the type of flow regime (laminar or turbulent) on which we have elaborated in our previous study. Maybe the most interesting result is that the build-up of free energy seems to be related to laminar flow and the decrease to turbulence. As turbulence is further related to higher erosion rates, we hypothesized that the occurrence of erosional structures such as rills or gullies can be pinpointed by the free energy content of surface runoff.
On a larger scale the hillslope itself is shaped into a certain form (SC or SW), typically by intermittent surface runoff events. This led us to the idea to analyze transient events in the study at hand. We therefore defined energy efficiency of a hillslope in line with energy efficiency of a mechanical machine, the output of free energy divided by the input of free energy. A more efficient surface runoff event is therefore one which allows a larger fraction of the input energy to be conserved in the energy output. Our results show that for transient events higher efficiency typically relates to SC hillslope types and lower efficiency to SW hillslope types. In a second step we argue that a higher efficiency is downregulated through erosion to smaller efficiency (the typical evolution of hillslopes from SC to SW forms). Section 4.4 shows that this reasoning does indeed apply to the hillslopes and surface runoff events in the Weiherbach catchment. Higher relative dissipation (SW forms, less efficiency) relates to less erosion and smaller relative dissipation relates to more erosion (SC forms, higher efficiency). It is therefore correct that we made a wording mistake in line 609-611, we will correct this sentence.
Comment 3:
We agree with the reviewer, ideally the hillslope should coevolve with the transient event. However, it was shown elsewhere (e.g. Kirkby, 1971) that hillslopes generally evolve from SC to SW profiles. In this perspective our tests consider only the beginning and the end of this evolution and we subsequently present the different energy fluxes in the presented thermodynamic framework. Our approach is therefore a simplification to highlight the differences between the start and the end point and provide a thermodynamic explanation to the direction of such hillslope evolution.
Comment 4:
We thank the reviewer for pointing out that infiltration could potentially have a large effect on the presented framework. In theory high infiltration rates would decrease the free energy of surface runoff, but at the same time it would increase the free energy of subsurface water. In this study we put our focus on surface runoff events, but the free energy content of subsurface water could certainly correlate with observed hillslope forms. As we also point out in line 546-549, Zehe et al. (2013) found for the same events in the Weiherbach catchment energy conversion rates of almost the same scale for subsurface runoff as we found in surface runoff. This highlights that surface and subsurface runoff of extreme events are likely to be co-organized. Such an analysis is however beyond the scope of this work.
We further agree with the rest of the minor comments from the reviewer, and it is our intention to correct each point in a final updated version of the manuscript.
We thank the anonymous reviewer again for her/his effort and beneficial critique.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1301-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Samuel Schroers, 12 Apr 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1301', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Jan 2023
In this research article, the authors explore the physical laws governing surface runoff’s effects on the geomorphology of hillslopes. This article takes as a starting point a research article previously published, the main difference being that the previous study considers steady-state conditions. This study formulates the free energy balance of transient surface runoff on hillslopes and analyzes the temporal evolution of some of the terms of the energy balance. Then, the study analyzes two extreme events under the previously introduced framework. The objective, as well as the novelty of the article are clear, and the methods employed are well justified.
My only concern is regarding the clarity and readability of the document. The topic of the study is indeed complex; however, some parts could be explained more clearly.
- Maybe I didn’t understand completely but in lines 368-369 you write “In the presented transient framework, an influx of energy may either lead to an increase of stored potential energy, an increase of kinetic energy, or an increase of the outflux of kinetic energy (Fig. 1).” Why are you disregarding the dissipation term here?
- If someone tries to replicate your numerical experiments of Section 3, would they require additional information? (e.g., manning coefficient, dimensions of the simulated domain, discretization sizes). Could you please include this information in the document?
- Is there any connection between the manning coefficient and dissipation?
- Figure 11 shows that for some hillslopes the dissipation at 3 hours is negative. How do you interpret/justify this result?
Please, also consider the following comments/suggestions:
- In lines 257 and 258 the formulation for relative energy stored and relative energy flux are incorrect since the integration symbol should be written in numerator and denominator.
- Please, define the symbols of the equations, for example, Eq. 8 and 13.
- In Figure 3, the integration over time is depicted in yellow.
- Include a sentence with the definition of stream power.
- Include the meaning of subindices f and sp in the equations of the appendix.
- Explain the quantities reported in Table 1.
- Why do you write that both events lie “well above the 10000-year flood of 3.3cms” (line 480) and in Table 1 you write 3.2 for event 2?
- Line 532 refers to Table 1. Why? Why 8%?
- Line 539: Is correct the reference to Eq. 6 and 7?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1301-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Samuel Schroers, 18 Feb 2023
We thank the anonymous reviewer for his thorough examination and constructive critique of some of the points we made in this article.
The reviewer correctly points out that the focus of our preceding study and the study at hand lies on dissipation of free energy. This already partly explains the reviewers comment regarding a definition of stream power, which from our point of view is the magnitude of potential energy (of water) that is being converted into other forms of energy per unit time. It is correct that we have made a mistake in Fig. 1, where we neglected the dissipation term, we will correct this in a revised manuscript.
Eq. 2 outlines, that dissipation is converted energy (stream power) minus the amount of energy which remains in the form of kinetic energy. Stream power alone therefore informs about the magnitudes of energy that is being converted, together with kinetic energy (and other remaining free energy which we have not considered in this study, e.g., turbulent kinetic energy) one can assess the efficiency of the conversion of a free energy gradient to flow, the movement of water.
This points to the next comment from the reviewer regarding the Manning coefficient, which currently is for most applications the only way to pinpoint this efficiency that scales dissipation. Any parameter which characterizes roughness is ultimately related to the conversion process of free energy to heat, describing the capacity of the system to create flow from a gradient of free energy. In fact, expressing this in steady state as the flux of kinetic energy over stream power with a formula that links average flow velocity and driving gradient such as the Manning equation we can derive a formula which describes the efficiency of a system to convert a gradient of free energy into kinetic energy as a function of geometry (hydraulic radius) and roughness (see supplement).
This leads again to our argumentation that to understand the evolution of the dynamics of flow, e.g., in a geomorphological context for erosion of hillslopes, we need to understand the evolution of efficiencies. We argue that the underlying driving process for evolution of the structure of a system does not depend on the physical parameter of roughness but on dissipation itself.
The comment from the author regarding negative dissipation of a single hillslope in Fig. 11 is correct. We traced this to the implementation of very shallow flows in the numerical scheme, an error we will correct by allowing smaller minimum water depths for movement of water.
Regarding the rest of the comments from the reviewer we thank her/him for the thorough inspection and will gladly incorporate the suggestions regarding readability and clarity.
We thank the reviewer for his effort and comments.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1301', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Mar 2023
I provide my comments in the attached document.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Samuel Schroers, 12 Apr 2023
We thank the anonymous reviewer for his detailed analysis of our study. Her/his comments are straight to the point and touch the core motivation of this research.
We would like to answer comments 1 and 2 in one paragraph, as we believe both are related and belong together:
The reviewer correctly highlights that the calculated dissipation term does not differentiate between the type of dissipation, be it the creation of turbulence, the lift or the transport of sediment particles. First, we would like to point to our previous publication (Schroers et al., 2022) and in particular to the discussion we had with Keith Beven regarding the same issue (https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-479-RC1). Among other things we presented in https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-479-AC2 an extension of our theoretical framework to distinguish the energy, which is spent on erosion, but this usually goes beyond what is possible to reliably represent with field data. There are however several studies (e.g. Emmett, 1970) which estimated the type of flow regime (laminar or turbulent) on which we have elaborated in our previous study. Maybe the most interesting result is that the build-up of free energy seems to be related to laminar flow and the decrease to turbulence. As turbulence is further related to higher erosion rates, we hypothesized that the occurrence of erosional structures such as rills or gullies can be pinpointed by the free energy content of surface runoff.
On a larger scale the hillslope itself is shaped into a certain form (SC or SW), typically by intermittent surface runoff events. This led us to the idea to analyze transient events in the study at hand. We therefore defined energy efficiency of a hillslope in line with energy efficiency of a mechanical machine, the output of free energy divided by the input of free energy. A more efficient surface runoff event is therefore one which allows a larger fraction of the input energy to be conserved in the energy output. Our results show that for transient events higher efficiency typically relates to SC hillslope types and lower efficiency to SW hillslope types. In a second step we argue that a higher efficiency is downregulated through erosion to smaller efficiency (the typical evolution of hillslopes from SC to SW forms). Section 4.4 shows that this reasoning does indeed apply to the hillslopes and surface runoff events in the Weiherbach catchment. Higher relative dissipation (SW forms, less efficiency) relates to less erosion and smaller relative dissipation relates to more erosion (SC forms, higher efficiency). It is therefore correct that we made a wording mistake in line 609-611, we will correct this sentence.
Comment 3:
We agree with the reviewer, ideally the hillslope should coevolve with the transient event. However, it was shown elsewhere (e.g. Kirkby, 1971) that hillslopes generally evolve from SC to SW profiles. In this perspective our tests consider only the beginning and the end of this evolution and we subsequently present the different energy fluxes in the presented thermodynamic framework. Our approach is therefore a simplification to highlight the differences between the start and the end point and provide a thermodynamic explanation to the direction of such hillslope evolution.
Comment 4:
We thank the reviewer for pointing out that infiltration could potentially have a large effect on the presented framework. In theory high infiltration rates would decrease the free energy of surface runoff, but at the same time it would increase the free energy of subsurface water. In this study we put our focus on surface runoff events, but the free energy content of subsurface water could certainly correlate with observed hillslope forms. As we also point out in line 546-549, Zehe et al. (2013) found for the same events in the Weiherbach catchment energy conversion rates of almost the same scale for subsurface runoff as we found in surface runoff. This highlights that surface and subsurface runoff of extreme events are likely to be co-organized. Such an analysis is however beyond the scope of this work.
We further agree with the rest of the minor comments from the reviewer, and it is our intention to correct each point in a final updated version of the manuscript.
We thank the anonymous reviewer again for her/his effort and beneficial critique.
We thank the anonymous reviewer for his detailed analysis of our study. Her/his comments are straight to the point and touch the core motivation of this research.
We would like to answer comments 1 and 2 in one paragraph, as we believe both are related and belong together:
The reviewer correctly highlights that the calculated dissipation term does not differentiate between the type of dissipation, be it the creation of turbulence, the lift or the transport of sediment particles. First, we would like to point to our previous publication (Schroers et al., 2022) and in particular to the discussion we had with Keith Beven regarding the same issue (https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-479-RC1). Among other things we presented in https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-479-AC2 an extension of our theoretical framework to distinguish the energy, which is spent on erosion, but this usually goes beyond what is possible to reliably represent with field data. There are however several studies (e.g. Emmett, 1970) which estimated the type of flow regime (laminar or turbulent) on which we have elaborated in our previous study. Maybe the most interesting result is that the build-up of free energy seems to be related to laminar flow and the decrease to turbulence. As turbulence is further related to higher erosion rates, we hypothesized that the occurrence of erosional structures such as rills or gullies can be pinpointed by the free energy content of surface runoff.
On a larger scale the hillslope itself is shaped into a certain form (SC or SW), typically by intermittent surface runoff events. This led us to the idea to analyze transient events in the study at hand. We therefore defined energy efficiency of a hillslope in line with energy efficiency of a mechanical machine, the output of free energy divided by the input of free energy. A more efficient surface runoff event is therefore one which allows a larger fraction of the input energy to be conserved in the energy output. Our results show that for transient events higher efficiency typically relates to SC hillslope types and lower efficiency to SW hillslope types. In a second step we argue that a higher efficiency is downregulated through erosion to smaller efficiency (the typical evolution of hillslopes from SC to SW forms). Section 4.4 shows that this reasoning does indeed apply to the hillslopes and surface runoff events in the Weiherbach catchment. Higher relative dissipation (SW forms, less efficiency) relates to less erosion and smaller relative dissipation relates to more erosion (SC forms, higher efficiency). It is therefore correct that we made a wording mistake in line 609-611, we will correct this sentence.
Comment 3:
We agree with the reviewer, ideally the hillslope should coevolve with the transient event. However, it was shown elsewhere (e.g. Kirkby, 1971) that hillslopes generally evolve from SC to SW profiles. In this perspective our tests consider only the beginning and the end of this evolution and we subsequently present the different energy fluxes in the presented thermodynamic framework. Our approach is therefore a simplification to highlight the differences between the start and the end point and provide a thermodynamic explanation to the direction of such hillslope evolution.
Comment 4:
We thank the reviewer for pointing out that infiltration could potentially have a large effect on the presented framework. In theory high infiltration rates would decrease the free energy of surface runoff, but at the same time it would increase the free energy of subsurface water. In this study we put our focus on surface runoff events, but the free energy content of subsurface water could certainly correlate with observed hillslope forms. As we also point out in line 546-549, Zehe et al. (2013) found for the same events in the Weiherbach catchment energy conversion rates of almost the same scale for subsurface runoff as we found in surface runoff. This highlights that surface and subsurface runoff of extreme events are likely to be co-organized. Such an analysis is however beyond the scope of this work.
We further agree with the rest of the minor comments from the reviewer, and it is our intention to correct each point in a final updated version of the manuscript.
We thank the anonymous reviewer again for her/his effort and beneficial critique.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1301-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Samuel Schroers, 12 Apr 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Model code and software
McCormack Scheme for solving 1D Shallow Water Equations Samuel Schroers https://github.com/shmulik1990/swe_cormack.git
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
290 | 111 | 15 | 416 | 5 | 6 |
- HTML: 290
- PDF: 111
- XML: 15
- Total: 416
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Samuel Schroers
Ulrike Scherer
Erwin Zehe
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3197 KB) - Metadata XML