the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 09 Jan 2025
Leveraging soil diversity to mitigate hydrological extremes with nature-based solutions in productive catchments
Abstract. Nature-based solutions (NbS) are increasingly being explored as effective strategies for mitigating hydrological extremes, such as floods and agricultural droughts. Among these, soil-vegetation-based approaches may play a key role in improving soil health, enhancing ecosystem services, and restoring the natural hydrological cycle in productive agricultural and forestry catchments, making these landscapes more resilient to climate change. However, the influence of local factors, such as soil characteristics, on the effectiveness of these interventions is often overlooked. This study investigates the role of spatial variability of soil properties in shaping the effectiveness of NbS for mitigating both floods and agricultural droughts. To this end, two distributed, physically based hydrological models, one for an agricultural catchment and one for a forest dominated catchment, were developed, integrating two landscape planning scenarios involving a series of NbS to be represented. Key spatially based indicators to assess the effectiveness of NbS were developed based on long term simulation results. A major output from this study is that the effectiveness of NbS in improving flood and drought resilience is dependent on the soil’s natural drainage characteristics, with well-drained soils demonstrating the greatest potential. In well-drained soils, hedgerows significantly enhanced infiltration by improving soil hydraulic properties and creating additional air space in the soil's porosity through higher rates of evapotranspiration. In contrast, improving hydraulic properties in waterlogged soils had minimal impact on infiltration due to existing saturation, with anoxic conditions potentially limiting transpiration. Additionally, the study highlights that well-drained soils offer co-benefits for resilience to agricultural droughts, as they are more likely to experience water deficits that NbS can mitigate. In contrast, such benefits are generally absent in waterlogged soils, which rarely face water scarcity. Future approaches to evaluate the potential effectiveness of NbS should recognize the spatial variability in their performance. This variability should inform the type and location of NbS to increase their overall effectiveness.
-
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
(2432 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2432 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3978', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Jan 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Benjamin Guillaume, 23 Jan 2025
Dear reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your prompt and insightful feedback on the manuscript. We have added our response below each of your comments (in bold).
The manuscript is engaging, well-written, and provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) in the two selected case studies. However, I believe the authors should further clarify the differences in soil characteristics between the two case studies. This is critical since a key focus of the manuscript is on how soil properties influence the efficiency of NBS. Although the two case studies differ in geomorphologic and land use/land cover properties, they share similar soil characteristics (both predominantly silty). Emphasizing this aspect would help differentiate the results and strengthen the analysis of case-specific outcomes.
We agree with your comment that the soil contexts could be detailed more thoroughly, as soil is a central point of our manuscript, and we plan to make changes accordingly. While the soil texture is mainly loamy in the two catchments, the soils differ primarily in other characteristics, such as hydromorphy or natural drainage capacity (mainly), the stoniness, the depth (of loose soil), and organic matter content (with peat soils in Catchment 2). Broadly speaking, the soils in Catchment 2 are on average more hydromorphic and less infiltrating. However, this statement is rather reductive given the spatial variability of soil characteristics at the local scale within each catchment.
Our intent in the manuscript was not to contrast the effectiveness of nature-based solutions (NBS) between the two catchments but rather to compare the effectiveness of different NBS (related to land use) across different pedological contexts (primarily based on natural drainage characteristics) that are present in both catchments, albeit in different proportions. We propose to clarify this in the article. We will add a specific section called ”soil context” in the Materials and Methods (Study Area) section to have a deeper description of the soils units. In this section, we will describe the various soil characteristics (texture, depth, stoniness, and natural drainage) found in our study areas, with their relative proportion in each catchment. We could also provide a more precise spatial description of how these different soil contexts are distributed within the catchments. Additionally, we will undertake a thorough review of the entire manuscript to strengthen the links between the results and the pedological context / ”soil context” section.
Additionally, I suggest some improvements to the figures, as the distinction between the two case studies is not particularly clear in some of them (e.g., Figure 3 and Figure 5). Enhancing the visual representation could better convey the comparative analysis.
For Figure 3, we propose to add a stacked bar chart of the proportion of surface of natural drainage classes of soils found in the two case studies. This would help to differentiate the catchment in terms of soil natural drainage characteristics (see supplement file).
For figure 5, we propose to split the figure in two parts; one for each case study.
Lastly, lines 312–315 are particularly intriguing. The unexpected results warrant a deeper explanation. It would be beneficial if the authors elaborated on the potential reasons behind these findings, focusing on how geomorphological and soil characteristics of the selected areas may have influenced the outcomes. Given the proximity of the two areas, climatic factors are likely not a significant contributor, so discussing the impact of local geomorphology and soil properties in greater detail would add valuable context.
To avoid any ambiguity, we must clarify that lines 312–315 refer to the peak discharges modelled for the baseline scenario (without NBS implementation). This clarification will be added to the manuscript. The paragraph primarily aims to recontextualize the two catchments by explaining that, in the current (baseline) scenario, the forest-dominated catchment (C2) generates more runoff than the agriculturally dominated catchment (C1).
In the manuscript, we use the term “counterintuitive” to describe the observation that the C2 generates more runoff than the agriculturally dominated catchment C1. However, “counterintuitive” might be too strong a term, as these results are entirely expected and align with our understanding of hydrological functioning of both catchments. Observations at the monitoring stations further confirm this, so it is not surprising. Our intention was simply to highlight that this does not align with the common assumption that forest-dominated catchments produce less runoff than agriculturally dominated ones. And obviously, we all recognize that land use alone does not fully explain the amount of runoff generated by a catchment. In our study case we mention that factors—such as topography, morphometry, geology, soil characteristics, and precipitation—also play a significant role. We will reformulate the paragraph in order to clarify the interpretation.
Although both catchments share the same temperate oceanic climate, there is a notable difference in their mean annual precipitation rates: 952 mm for C1 and 1158 mm for C2, a 20% difference that we consider significant. If preferred, we could replace the term “climate” with “precipitation rate” to avoid any confusion.
We propose to discuss briefly about the impact of local soil properties on the modeled hydrological functioning of the catchments, referring to the proposed ”soil context” section in the Materials and Methods. However, since this paragraph (lines 312–315) refers exclusively to the BASELINE scenario, and the primary objective of the article is not to compare the hydrological functioning of the catchments under the BASELINE scenario but rather to assess the effectiveness of NBS, we prefer not to elaborate to much and instead maintain focus on the article’s main message.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Benjamin Guillaume, 23 Jan 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3978', Martin Volk, 28 Jan 2025
The study highlights the role of nature-based solutions (NbS) in mitigating floods and agricultural droughts, particularly through soil-vegetation approaches that improve soil health and ecosystem resilience. The authors found that local soil characteristics significantly influence NbS effectiveness. Using hydrological models, it showed that well-drained soils enhance flood and drought resilience, as hedgerows improve infiltration and hydraulic properties. In contrast, waterlogged soils show limited benefits due to saturation. The study emphasizes the need to consider spatial soil variability when designing and placing NbS for maximum impact. In general, it is a well-elaborated and well-written manuscript, but I think that the value of the study, its pros, cons and system limits should be pointed out a bit better. I have listed my suggestions below.In times of increasing numbers of floods and droughts, such studies are very relevant in order to be able to derive resilient measures to mitigate the negative effects of these events. For me it is a valuable modelling experiment that cleary shows the potential but also the existing gaps in this field of research.
Abstract
Well written. I would already here mention what kind of model you used and what NbS you investigated, makes it more specfic. If you cannot mention all, give the most important ones / examples.
I think you could also highlight a bit more that is an experimental study (in my opinion), because you also investigate in how far the model is able to simulate the effect of the retention measures. I would write this. Point out what is innovative, what was surprising, and what are pros, cons and limits of your general and modelling approach. It should made be clearer what the value of your study is.1. Introduction
General comments: Well elaborated. For me, however, it is not clear whether the two study areas were already affected by floods and droughts, so perhaps this could be added here (also in the description of the study areas). I hope I did not miss such a statement in the manuscript.
Line 47 ff (NbS): I think that the wealth of different "perspectives" and opinions on NbS can be confusing, you can be a bit more specific regarding your measures (some of them seems to be Natural (Small) Water Retention Measures ;o) ). Have a look at our paper that tries to bring a bit more order into all these concepts:https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/3/1308
I was thinking of it when reading the concerning sentences in the manuscript. Just have a look at our paper, if it helps, that's fine, if not, that's fine too. No obligation / need to cite, only if it helps.Line 76 ff (models): You might provide a brief concise overview on some of such models either here or in the model framework description (2.2) which also lead to your model selection.
For me, it is in general still a problem that the measures we simulate in the model show an effect almost immediately, which does not correspond to reality. Depending on the landscape conditions, there is a delay in these effects (such as retention). If you see this similar, you could discuss that somewhere (intro or discussion, maybe better there).
Line 86 ff (objectives) For me, as mentioned, it is also an experimental study that tests the capabiities of your (modelling) procedure for your task. I mean you clearly show the pros and cons and gaps (what still has to be done).
2. Materials and Methods
2.1 Study area
General comment: See my comment before, add (maybe here) info if the study areas already faced floods and / or droughts..Figure 1: The soil map is a bit hard to read.
Line 106: Sentence "Apart from peatlands,.." . I think you can delete this sentence, it is already written in line 100 ("Soils are mostly silty.")(except of the stone content) and does not provide additional information).
2.2 Modelling framework
General comment: See my comment in the intro - provide a brief concise description on other models with similar capabilities (or weaknesses) such as MIKE SHE / MIKE 1D.2.2.1 Hydrological model
Line 124 ff (data description): I would add a table listing the data and describe the most relevant characterists / information it. See this example (section 2.3 Model inputs) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X1931012X?via%3Dihub
No need to cite the paper, just an example for a table listing the model inputs!!
Line 137 ff: What about land management (tillage crop rotation, fertilization, etc.) data, for instance from agricultural statistics, data from Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) or interviews?Line 201 (Moriasi et al., 2007): I know Daniel Moriasi and I highly appreciate his work, and I know that many people use this performance guideline, but I think it is not always the best method to evaluate model performance. In some cases it might not say very much about how well the hydrological dynamics are represented by the model (you describe the dynamics later in the text, so all fine (just a comment)).
2.2.2 Landscape planning scenarios
General comment: Are these scenarios and suggestions just your ideas or are they based on some River basin or landscape management plans or something like that in your region that suggest some of them?
Would be good to know.Line 229 ff (Agricutural practices): These are partly very small areas (if I understand this correctly). Is it relevant?
Table 3: The table is titled "summary of hypotheses.." - are there other papers that used these or similar parameter modifications to "describe" such measures? How to confirm or reject the hypotheses? By measurements? These are these experiments?
I guess there is no kind of a parameter database for such measures in the model (similar to SWAT) that can be extended?Is your model able to simulate the effect of each of these measures in equal quality? Or are some "better simulated" than others?
2.2.3 Integrated hydrological analysis of model outputs
Line 248 (Hydrological indicators): So, you developed these indicators? I think there several indicators out like this, I think you should provide an overview. Infiltration and agricultural drought, etc., are not new "indicators". I would better point out what is new here (because - again - you write that you developed them) and what is better compared to the exiting ones.
Do you see it as as a kind of "enhancement" to other hydrological indicators, such as the "Indicators for Hydrological Alteration (IHA)", introduced mainly by Richter et al. and Poff et al. and many more?3. Results and discussion
General comment: Well elaborated and written.3.4 Spatial variability of effectiveness of NbS against flood
Line 426 ff (These findings..). The question is again) if your results - considering all uncertainties - justify such a statement (second part of the sentence)? What about the delay of measures effects? Regarding flood protection measures - when are floods are too strong, that measures have no effect anymore?Line 468 ff ("These areas, we believe.." ff): See my comments above. Are the results reliable enough to state this - would you tell that a stakeholder / water manager, etc.? OK, you eaken your statement with last sentence, but think of reformulate it.
3.5 Spatial variability of effectiveness of NbS against agricultural drought
General comment: You could perform allocation change experiments" (searching for the most effective measures (or measure combinations) at specific locations)? We use multi-criteria optimization for that (see https://www.optain.eu; see also project deliverables)). Could be a point for discussion?3.6 Synergies and trade-offs between flood and drought mitigation with NbS
General comment: See my previous comment regarding "allocation experiments" / combination of measures.3.7 Study limitations and knowledge gaps
General comments: In general, I would emphasize the value of the study a little better. So far, the gaps are highlighted quite well in this chapter (although the word “however” is used a little too often ;o) ), but it should be worked out a little better. What about the uncertainties (capability of the model(s) (what are the system limits (scale, describing the efficincy measure under the given circumstances, data, etc.? Can they (uncetainties) be quantified? What does that do to the reliability of the results? Is it sufficient so far to be able to derive reliable recommendations? For me, this is a very good modeling experiment that could be used as a basis for further discussion (scientists, stakeholders), also to specify what needs to be tackled urgently next. To do this, you could involve farmers, authorities, economists, and first ask them for their opinion on the methods, measures and results.
I have already mentioned other points (taking into account the delayed effect of the implemented measures, experiments on the spatial allocation of measures (and the combination of measures), flood protection measures – when are floods too strong to be mitigated by these measures? etc.).
You basically already have many of the points in this chapter, but I would discuss it a bit more clearly and in a more structured way and – as I said – emphasize the value of the study more clearly.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3978-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Benjamin Guillaume, 07 Mar 2025
Publisher’s note: a supplement was added to this comment on 10 March 2025.
Dear Martin Volk,
We thank you for your valuable comments. We found them very relevant and believe they will greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. Our response contains figures and tables, so please find attached a PDF file containing our responses to your comments. We hope that it will clarify your concerns and adequately address your comments.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Benjamin Guillaume, 07 Mar 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3978', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Jan 2025
The manuscript is engaging, well-written, and provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) in the two selected case studies. However, I believe the authors should further clarify the differences in soil characteristics between the two case studies. This is critical since a key focus of the manuscript is on how soil properties influence the efficiency of NBS. Although the two case studies differ in geomorphologic and land use/land cover properties, they share similar soil characteristics (both predominantly silty). Emphasizing this aspect would help differentiate the results and strengthen the analysis of case-specific outcomes.
Additionally, I suggest some improvements to the figures, as the distinction between the two case studies is not particularly clear in some of them (e.g., Figure 3 and Figure 5). Enhancing the visual representation could better convey the comparative analysis.
Lastly, lines 312–315 are particularly intriguing. The unexpected results warrant a deeper explanation. It would be beneficial if the authors elaborated on the potential reasons behind these findings, focusing on how geomorphological and soil characteristics of the selected areas may have influenced the outcomes. Given the proximity of the two areas, climatic factors are likely not a significant contributor, so discussing the impact of local geomorphology and soil properties in greater detail would add valuable context.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3978-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Benjamin Guillaume, 23 Jan 2025
Dear reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your prompt and insightful feedback on the manuscript. We have added our response below each of your comments (in bold).
The manuscript is engaging, well-written, and provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) in the two selected case studies. However, I believe the authors should further clarify the differences in soil characteristics between the two case studies. This is critical since a key focus of the manuscript is on how soil properties influence the efficiency of NBS. Although the two case studies differ in geomorphologic and land use/land cover properties, they share similar soil characteristics (both predominantly silty). Emphasizing this aspect would help differentiate the results and strengthen the analysis of case-specific outcomes.
We agree with your comment that the soil contexts could be detailed more thoroughly, as soil is a central point of our manuscript, and we plan to make changes accordingly. While the soil texture is mainly loamy in the two catchments, the soils differ primarily in other characteristics, such as hydromorphy or natural drainage capacity (mainly), the stoniness, the depth (of loose soil), and organic matter content (with peat soils in Catchment 2). Broadly speaking, the soils in Catchment 2 are on average more hydromorphic and less infiltrating. However, this statement is rather reductive given the spatial variability of soil characteristics at the local scale within each catchment.
Our intent in the manuscript was not to contrast the effectiveness of nature-based solutions (NBS) between the two catchments but rather to compare the effectiveness of different NBS (related to land use) across different pedological contexts (primarily based on natural drainage characteristics) that are present in both catchments, albeit in different proportions. We propose to clarify this in the article. We will add a specific section called ”soil context” in the Materials and Methods (Study Area) section to have a deeper description of the soils units. In this section, we will describe the various soil characteristics (texture, depth, stoniness, and natural drainage) found in our study areas, with their relative proportion in each catchment. We could also provide a more precise spatial description of how these different soil contexts are distributed within the catchments. Additionally, we will undertake a thorough review of the entire manuscript to strengthen the links between the results and the pedological context / ”soil context” section.
Additionally, I suggest some improvements to the figures, as the distinction between the two case studies is not particularly clear in some of them (e.g., Figure 3 and Figure 5). Enhancing the visual representation could better convey the comparative analysis.
For Figure 3, we propose to add a stacked bar chart of the proportion of surface of natural drainage classes of soils found in the two case studies. This would help to differentiate the catchment in terms of soil natural drainage characteristics (see supplement file).
For figure 5, we propose to split the figure in two parts; one for each case study.
Lastly, lines 312–315 are particularly intriguing. The unexpected results warrant a deeper explanation. It would be beneficial if the authors elaborated on the potential reasons behind these findings, focusing on how geomorphological and soil characteristics of the selected areas may have influenced the outcomes. Given the proximity of the two areas, climatic factors are likely not a significant contributor, so discussing the impact of local geomorphology and soil properties in greater detail would add valuable context.
To avoid any ambiguity, we must clarify that lines 312–315 refer to the peak discharges modelled for the baseline scenario (without NBS implementation). This clarification will be added to the manuscript. The paragraph primarily aims to recontextualize the two catchments by explaining that, in the current (baseline) scenario, the forest-dominated catchment (C2) generates more runoff than the agriculturally dominated catchment (C1).
In the manuscript, we use the term “counterintuitive” to describe the observation that the C2 generates more runoff than the agriculturally dominated catchment C1. However, “counterintuitive” might be too strong a term, as these results are entirely expected and align with our understanding of hydrological functioning of both catchments. Observations at the monitoring stations further confirm this, so it is not surprising. Our intention was simply to highlight that this does not align with the common assumption that forest-dominated catchments produce less runoff than agriculturally dominated ones. And obviously, we all recognize that land use alone does not fully explain the amount of runoff generated by a catchment. In our study case we mention that factors—such as topography, morphometry, geology, soil characteristics, and precipitation—also play a significant role. We will reformulate the paragraph in order to clarify the interpretation.
Although both catchments share the same temperate oceanic climate, there is a notable difference in their mean annual precipitation rates: 952 mm for C1 and 1158 mm for C2, a 20% difference that we consider significant. If preferred, we could replace the term “climate” with “precipitation rate” to avoid any confusion.
We propose to discuss briefly about the impact of local soil properties on the modeled hydrological functioning of the catchments, referring to the proposed ”soil context” section in the Materials and Methods. However, since this paragraph (lines 312–315) refers exclusively to the BASELINE scenario, and the primary objective of the article is not to compare the hydrological functioning of the catchments under the BASELINE scenario but rather to assess the effectiveness of NBS, we prefer not to elaborate to much and instead maintain focus on the article’s main message.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Benjamin Guillaume, 23 Jan 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3978', Martin Volk, 28 Jan 2025
The study highlights the role of nature-based solutions (NbS) in mitigating floods and agricultural droughts, particularly through soil-vegetation approaches that improve soil health and ecosystem resilience. The authors found that local soil characteristics significantly influence NbS effectiveness. Using hydrological models, it showed that well-drained soils enhance flood and drought resilience, as hedgerows improve infiltration and hydraulic properties. In contrast, waterlogged soils show limited benefits due to saturation. The study emphasizes the need to consider spatial soil variability when designing and placing NbS for maximum impact. In general, it is a well-elaborated and well-written manuscript, but I think that the value of the study, its pros, cons and system limits should be pointed out a bit better. I have listed my suggestions below.In times of increasing numbers of floods and droughts, such studies are very relevant in order to be able to derive resilient measures to mitigate the negative effects of these events. For me it is a valuable modelling experiment that cleary shows the potential but also the existing gaps in this field of research.
Abstract
Well written. I would already here mention what kind of model you used and what NbS you investigated, makes it more specfic. If you cannot mention all, give the most important ones / examples.
I think you could also highlight a bit more that is an experimental study (in my opinion), because you also investigate in how far the model is able to simulate the effect of the retention measures. I would write this. Point out what is innovative, what was surprising, and what are pros, cons and limits of your general and modelling approach. It should made be clearer what the value of your study is.1. Introduction
General comments: Well elaborated. For me, however, it is not clear whether the two study areas were already affected by floods and droughts, so perhaps this could be added here (also in the description of the study areas). I hope I did not miss such a statement in the manuscript.
Line 47 ff (NbS): I think that the wealth of different "perspectives" and opinions on NbS can be confusing, you can be a bit more specific regarding your measures (some of them seems to be Natural (Small) Water Retention Measures ;o) ). Have a look at our paper that tries to bring a bit more order into all these concepts:https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/3/1308
I was thinking of it when reading the concerning sentences in the manuscript. Just have a look at our paper, if it helps, that's fine, if not, that's fine too. No obligation / need to cite, only if it helps.Line 76 ff (models): You might provide a brief concise overview on some of such models either here or in the model framework description (2.2) which also lead to your model selection.
For me, it is in general still a problem that the measures we simulate in the model show an effect almost immediately, which does not correspond to reality. Depending on the landscape conditions, there is a delay in these effects (such as retention). If you see this similar, you could discuss that somewhere (intro or discussion, maybe better there).
Line 86 ff (objectives) For me, as mentioned, it is also an experimental study that tests the capabiities of your (modelling) procedure for your task. I mean you clearly show the pros and cons and gaps (what still has to be done).
2. Materials and Methods
2.1 Study area
General comment: See my comment before, add (maybe here) info if the study areas already faced floods and / or droughts..Figure 1: The soil map is a bit hard to read.
Line 106: Sentence "Apart from peatlands,.." . I think you can delete this sentence, it is already written in line 100 ("Soils are mostly silty.")(except of the stone content) and does not provide additional information).
2.2 Modelling framework
General comment: See my comment in the intro - provide a brief concise description on other models with similar capabilities (or weaknesses) such as MIKE SHE / MIKE 1D.2.2.1 Hydrological model
Line 124 ff (data description): I would add a table listing the data and describe the most relevant characterists / information it. See this example (section 2.3 Model inputs) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X1931012X?via%3Dihub
No need to cite the paper, just an example for a table listing the model inputs!!
Line 137 ff: What about land management (tillage crop rotation, fertilization, etc.) data, for instance from agricultural statistics, data from Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) or interviews?Line 201 (Moriasi et al., 2007): I know Daniel Moriasi and I highly appreciate his work, and I know that many people use this performance guideline, but I think it is not always the best method to evaluate model performance. In some cases it might not say very much about how well the hydrological dynamics are represented by the model (you describe the dynamics later in the text, so all fine (just a comment)).
2.2.2 Landscape planning scenarios
General comment: Are these scenarios and suggestions just your ideas or are they based on some River basin or landscape management plans or something like that in your region that suggest some of them?
Would be good to know.Line 229 ff (Agricutural practices): These are partly very small areas (if I understand this correctly). Is it relevant?
Table 3: The table is titled "summary of hypotheses.." - are there other papers that used these or similar parameter modifications to "describe" such measures? How to confirm or reject the hypotheses? By measurements? These are these experiments?
I guess there is no kind of a parameter database for such measures in the model (similar to SWAT) that can be extended?Is your model able to simulate the effect of each of these measures in equal quality? Or are some "better simulated" than others?
2.2.3 Integrated hydrological analysis of model outputs
Line 248 (Hydrological indicators): So, you developed these indicators? I think there several indicators out like this, I think you should provide an overview. Infiltration and agricultural drought, etc., are not new "indicators". I would better point out what is new here (because - again - you write that you developed them) and what is better compared to the exiting ones.
Do you see it as as a kind of "enhancement" to other hydrological indicators, such as the "Indicators for Hydrological Alteration (IHA)", introduced mainly by Richter et al. and Poff et al. and many more?3. Results and discussion
General comment: Well elaborated and written.3.4 Spatial variability of effectiveness of NbS against flood
Line 426 ff (These findings..). The question is again) if your results - considering all uncertainties - justify such a statement (second part of the sentence)? What about the delay of measures effects? Regarding flood protection measures - when are floods are too strong, that measures have no effect anymore?Line 468 ff ("These areas, we believe.." ff): See my comments above. Are the results reliable enough to state this - would you tell that a stakeholder / water manager, etc.? OK, you eaken your statement with last sentence, but think of reformulate it.
3.5 Spatial variability of effectiveness of NbS against agricultural drought
General comment: You could perform allocation change experiments" (searching for the most effective measures (or measure combinations) at specific locations)? We use multi-criteria optimization for that (see https://www.optain.eu; see also project deliverables)). Could be a point for discussion?3.6 Synergies and trade-offs between flood and drought mitigation with NbS
General comment: See my previous comment regarding "allocation experiments" / combination of measures.3.7 Study limitations and knowledge gaps
General comments: In general, I would emphasize the value of the study a little better. So far, the gaps are highlighted quite well in this chapter (although the word “however” is used a little too often ;o) ), but it should be worked out a little better. What about the uncertainties (capability of the model(s) (what are the system limits (scale, describing the efficincy measure under the given circumstances, data, etc.? Can they (uncetainties) be quantified? What does that do to the reliability of the results? Is it sufficient so far to be able to derive reliable recommendations? For me, this is a very good modeling experiment that could be used as a basis for further discussion (scientists, stakeholders), also to specify what needs to be tackled urgently next. To do this, you could involve farmers, authorities, economists, and first ask them for their opinion on the methods, measures and results.
I have already mentioned other points (taking into account the delayed effect of the implemented measures, experiments on the spatial allocation of measures (and the combination of measures), flood protection measures – when are floods too strong to be mitigated by these measures? etc.).
You basically already have many of the points in this chapter, but I would discuss it a bit more clearly and in a more structured way and – as I said – emphasize the value of the study more clearly.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3978-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Benjamin Guillaume, 07 Mar 2025
Publisher’s note: a supplement was added to this comment on 10 March 2025.
Dear Martin Volk,
We thank you for your valuable comments. We found them very relevant and believe they will greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. Our response contains figures and tables, so please find attached a PDF file containing our responses to your comments. We hope that it will clarify your concerns and adequately address your comments.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Benjamin Guillaume, 07 Mar 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 882 | 165 | 18 | 1,065 | 28 | 58 |
- HTML: 882
- PDF: 165
- XML: 18
- Total: 1,065
- BibTeX: 28
- EndNote: 58
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
Benjamin Guillaume
Aurore Degré
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2432 KB) - Metadata XML
The manuscript is engaging, well-written, and provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) in the two selected case studies. However, I believe the authors should further clarify the differences in soil characteristics between the two case studies. This is critical since a key focus of the manuscript is on how soil properties influence the efficiency of NBS. Although the two case studies differ in geomorphologic and land use/land cover properties, they share similar soil characteristics (both predominantly silty). Emphasizing this aspect would help differentiate the results and strengthen the analysis of case-specific outcomes.
Additionally, I suggest some improvements to the figures, as the distinction between the two case studies is not particularly clear in some of them (e.g., Figure 3 and Figure 5). Enhancing the visual representation could better convey the comparative analysis.
Lastly, lines 312–315 are particularly intriguing. The unexpected results warrant a deeper explanation. It would be beneficial if the authors elaborated on the potential reasons behind these findings, focusing on how geomorphological and soil characteristics of the selected areas may have influenced the outcomes. Given the proximity of the two areas, climatic factors are likely not a significant contributor, so discussing the impact of local geomorphology and soil properties in greater detail would add valuable context.