The new version of the manuscript is significantly improved, and the new scope is more scientifically novel than the previous one. All of my comments have been addressed properly in authors' response document. I have a few minor comments on the new manuscript, which I list below. Overall, I recommend this study for publication after a very minor revision:
A. Lines 38-41: one approach to using FDC signatures in model calibration is direct use of multiple signatures (e.g., Yilmaz et al., 2008; and Shafii and Tolson, 2015), which is missing in the list of practices in this section.
B. Regarding hypothesis testing results: when the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, it does not mean that it is accepted. Rather, we should say there is no evidence that it is rejected. Therefore, in Table 3, the word 'No' has to be replaced with 'No Evidence'. The corresponding text needs to change too, which will be a slight modification.
C. It is not clear how additional constraints (i.e., signatures) are utilized. For example, looking at Figure 9, how is IBF used in FDC+IBF case? Has there been a threshold for accepting/rejecting models? Some explanation is needed in the paper.
D. In the limitation section, I think authors should mention that all catchments have a long record of data, and conclusions may not be expandable to poorly gauged catchments. I am wondering if hydrograph is still more appropriate than FDC if the number of available data points is not high. |