State-Forcing and Slope-Position Controls on Near-Surface Hillslope Wetting and Flood-Peak Variability in a Steep Mountain Catchment
Abstract. Rainfall-runoff response in steep, vegetated mountain catchments often varies strongly among events because rainfall input interacts with antecedent wetness, soil water redistribution, and transient hillslope-channel connectivity. Yet it remains unclear whether near-surface soil moisture profiles can indicate when hillslope wetting departs from a simple top-down sequence and whether such signals help explain flood-peak variability at the catchment outlet. We examined 30 rainfall-runoff events in the Ganwuli River basin using 15-minute rainfall records, outlet discharge, and soil moisture observations from three topographic positions with sensors at depths of 10–60 cm. Within this monitored near-surface profile, the 10–30 cm sensors were treated as upper monitored layers and the 40–60 cm sensors as lower monitored layers. Event responses were described using response occurrence, wetting magnitude, response lag, non-sequential wetting, and lower-layer early response. Across events, peak discharge increased primarily with total rainfall, whereas the maximum hydrograph rise rate was more sensitive to the intensity of short-duration rainfall. Soil moisture responses were frequent in the upper monitored layers at the foot-slope position. By contrast, lower monitored layers at the mid-slope and upper-slope positions more often showed early or near-synchronous responses relative to the upper layers, indicating that wetting within the monitored profile was not always governed by sequential vertical propagation. Segmented logistic models and two-dimensional probability surfaces further indicated that these lower-layer responses were most likely to occur when wet antecedent conditions coincided with high short-duration rainfall intensity. Events with lower-layer early responses at the upper-slope position tended to have larger flood peaks, but this relationship is interpreted as an indicator of changing hillslope connectivity rather than direct evidence of deep groundwater flow paths. These findings suggest that high-frequency near-surface soil moisture profiles can add useful process information for interpreting event-scale flood variability, while deeper storage and groundwater mechanisms require independent observations.
In this paper, the authors report on surface and subsurface soil moisture in-situ observations in a slope. They clearly reveal that a simple conceptual model of vertical wetting process from surface to subsurface cannot be applied to their studied slope. The control factors of soil wetting process are analyzed by statistical analysis including 30 rainfall events.
General comments:
I think the topic of this paper is suitable for HESS. Their observation data are important and worth to be distributed to the hydrological community. However, I’m not confident that this paper provides a new and significant hydrological insight, which should be clarified in the revision. I recommend the Editor to reconsider this paper after major revisions.
Most importantly, despite a lot of statistical analysis performed by the authors, the physical interpretation of the wetting process is not explicitly written and unclear. In my guess, surface soil moisture at the top and middle positions is high and almost saturated even before rainfall in their study period, so that the authors cannot detect responses to rainfall. On the other hand, surface soil is dry at the foot position, and its response to rainfall can be detected. Subsurface soil moisture at the top and middle positions might be responded to the lateral water flow, but the authors do not have solid evidence of it. I think the authors’ findings are affected by the unique condition of wet-dry contrast of surface soil before rainfall due probably to slope angle or vegetation conditions in their study area. If so, how can they generalize their findings to contribute to improving the understanding of hydrological processes? I would like to see the discussion on this point.
Specific comments:
Minor points:
Line 159: P30 should be PI30?
Caption in Figure 5: What is Presp? Should it be R?