Reply to comment on “Evaluation of a physically based quasi-linear and a conceptually based nonlinear Muskingum methods” by Reza Barati

Abstract

The writers thank the discusser for his interest in the study of Perumal et al. (2017) and welcome the opportunity to address the issues raised by the discusser. The discusser has mainly raised four issues on the comparative study carried out by Perumal et al. (2017) in evaluating the performances of the VPMM model and the NLM based models, which was initiated by Gill (1977, 1978). These four issues are addressed by these writers in the following pages: As a first issue, the discusser has raised a question about the appropriateness of using the VPMM model (Perumal and Price, 2013), which he considers as the much improved routing model of the Muskingum-Cunge family approach, and the original nonlinear Muskingum model of Gill (1978), which he, perhaps, considers as a initial version of the NLM models. These writers perceive that the discusser intends to convey that the performance evaluation study presented by Perumal et al. (2017) based on a latest improved model and a initial version of the NLM models is inappropriate. Before discussing straightaway on this issue, the writer would like to clarify on the misconception of the discusser in categorizing the VPMM method and the Muskingum-Cunge method under one family approach.