Changes in Magnitude and Shifts in Timing of Australian Flood Peaks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper examines changes in the magnitude and timing of flood peaks across 596 stations in Australia. The analysis of annual maximum discharge data is comprehensive, and the results are generally well-presented. A particular interesting point is the link between changes in magnitude and change in timing, which in my view should be explored further. I have a few major concerns that should be addressed before publication of this paper.
1. Results Discussion: Without analyzing rainfall/evaporation data, it is challenging for the authors to interpret the reasons behind the changes and the connection between magnitude and timing changes. Additionally, some discussions appear unsupported by the analyses (e.g., P16L514, unclear reference to "stronger seasonality"). I recommend that the authors select one or two focus divisions for in-depth analysis. For instance, in a division showing a significant decrease in flood magnitude and a delay in timing, what specific changes are occurring? Daily hydrographs of flood events in earlier and later years, combined with rainfall/soil moisture data, can facilitate a deeper understanding of the connections and underlying mechanisms.
2. Literature Review: While the authors have done a good job reviewing flood magnitude changes from previous literature, they should also summarize studies on the timing of floods in Australia, including global-scale studies with less detail (e.g., Do et al., 2019, WRR). This will provide a more comprehensive context for their study.
3. Table/Figure Presentation: In Table 2, regions with regionally significant changes in flood magnitude and timing are presented. Please clarify whether these results differ from the entries in bold, which indicate field-significant results in Table 1. The results may appear inconsistent, especially for divisions such as TAS, which shows regional significant timing shifts but only has 2/1 stations with increasing/decreasing shifts. The authors should provide a better explanation of the difference between field significance and regional significance tests. Additionally, please consider adding trend magnitude and regional significance information in the panels of Figure 11.
4. Samples in Divisions: While analyzing at the drainage division level has advantages, it may be less meaningful for smaller divisions with few stations (e.g., 6 in LEB and 2 in NWP). The results can be highly sensitive to local influences and may not accurately represent the division's conditions. The authors could contemplate merging smaller stations or excluding divisions with fewer than a certain threshold of stations.
Please consider incorporating these suggestions into your revision.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI noticed several typing errors during the review. While the list is not exhaustive, I recommend that the authors conduct another round of careful proofreading and typesetting during the revision.
1. P2L72: Remove the extra space.
2. P3L136: Remove the extra comma.
3. P4L170: Replace "has" with "having."
4. P22L732: Change "performed" to "were performed."
Author Response
Please see attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLine 118 references the kids Britannica, please remove this reference.
Line 170 you state that the MDB has the largest number of stations. Either include the number of stations in brackets or include a reference to table 1.
Line 482 you say that SWP showed no significant trends. There is no data for this drainage division. Please reword.
Please cite your data sources for figures 1 and 2.
Please include the relevant information about water years in the methods section, rather than just the results.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are lots of typos in the document. Please read through the document carefully and correct these issues.
Author Response
Please see attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf