Implications of Land Use/Land Cover Changes and Climate Change on Black Volta Basin Future Water Resources in Ghana
, Samuel Nii Odai 1,3, Santosh Murlidhar Pingale 4 and Deepak Khare 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Firstly, the authors have not changed their manuscripts using the journal template. Please use the template to revise the manuscript in accordance with the journal's requirements.
2. Secondly, there are no line numbers in the manuscript, which is very inconvenient for reviewers.
3. The use of "x" is required. For example, change the abstract from: "0.65 106 m³" to "0.65 x 106 m³".
4. Abstract. "The variability of mean annual flows over the period 1993-2003 only for instance decreased from 35% to 43% on the Black Volta. ". Please delete this sentence and add an outlook.
5. "1 Introduction" instead of "1.0. Introduction".
6. I am sorry, but I cannot find the table? Are there only figures in the appendix material and no tables uploaded? Also, according to journal policy, figures and tables need to be in the body of the manuscript.
7. It is recommended that this be recreated using Microsoft Office PowerPoint. Also, information such as the year can be removed from the diagram. Try to ensure that the flow chart is as concise as possible.
8. It is recommended that the findings are divided into points and that each conclusion does not exceed 150 words.
For the manuscript, the manuscript does not use the journal template, has no line numbers and is missing tables. This made it difficult for me to review the manuscript. However, I was able to identify research in the manuscript that could have been further revised and then published. I hope that the authors will be able to revise it according to the journal's template and then review it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Your contribution is not only promising, but very urgent. It is directly related to the journal’s scope and will be of interest to the wide research audience. However, it needs to be organized much better. Various additions are also necessary.
1) IMPORTANT: figures and tables are indicated, but absent in this main document. I see figures in the supplement – please, input them into the text. As for the tables, I cannot find them. These should also be put into the text.
2) Title: please, try to shorten it and to make more appealing to the international research audience.
3) Subsection 2.1 should be organized more logically. Please, start with location, then characterize physical geography, than turn to population and settlement patterns, and end with socio-economical patterns. This subsection would also benefit from a few photos of the area gathered on a single plate numbered as Figure 2.
4) Sections 2.2, 2.3: you MUST provide citations/links to original data sources. You also have to indicate software used in your analysis and cite some basic works explaining the principles you use.
5) Section 3: it is a rule in all international journals to separate Results (=your direct findings) and Discussion (=what do these findings mean and how these can be put into the context of the international research) as two SEPARATE sections. So, please, re-organize your information accordingly.
6) In fact, the interpretations (explanations of the registered patterns and sustainable policy implications) are limited or, better to say, absent. These should be communicated extensively in Discussion.
7) Conclusions: please, present a numbered list of 3-5 main conclusions (3 from Results and 2 from Discussion) to be followed by consideration of limitations of this study and perspectives for further research.
8) References: please, add more sources – first of all, articles published in top international journals after 2019.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have formatted the manuscript using the journal template this time, which has helped a lot with the review. However, there are still some problems and the manuscript will not be considered for publication until it has been revised.
1. Abstract. "The variability of mean annual flows over the period 1993-2003 only for instance decreased from 43% to 35% on the Black Volta.". Please delete this sentence and add an outlook.
This question does not appear to be revised? I think the abstract should end with an outlook (expanding on the significance of the article's findings) rather than just restating the results.
2. Line 39. Revise "Black Volta; Basin;" to "Black Volta Basin".
3. Figure 2 still needs to be refined in detail.
4. Line 157. The URL needs to have the last date of access added.
5. Figures 3, 4 and 5 could be combined into one figure.
6. Figure 6. needs further detail correction. Also the description of (a)(b)(c) should be placed on line 239.
7. Tables 2 and 3 should also be merged.
8. The descriptions in Tables 2 and 3 are inconsistent. In Table 2, "LULC" is used and in Table 3, "LULC Class" is used, in addition to the difference in case. The authors should check carefully that the descriptions in the manuscript are consistent.
9. The descriptions in Fig. 7 (a) (b) (c) should be put together and modified as in Fig. 6.
10. Also, Figure 7 should be placed after Table 3.
11. I suggest that Figures 8, 9 and 10 be combined into one figure.
12. Also, for part 3.1, 4 figures and a table are a bit much. I would ask the author to put the less important figures or tables in the appendix material.
13. In the main text the author uses the words "RCP 2.6" and "RCP2.6". Please add a space after the RCP. Check the rest of the text to ensure that the descriptions in the manuscript are consistent.
14. There are only two results (3.1 and 3.2) in the whole paper, which is too few. The authors could change 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 to 3.2 and 3.3 respectively.
15. The figures and tables cited in section 3.2.1 need to be inserted below the text and not elsewhere in the manuscript.
16. Use three-line tables for all tables.
17. Is the data for runoff available after 2008? If so keep the time range of the data in the manuscript consistent.
18. The Sens lines in figures 13 and 14 are too thick.
19. Figures 13 and 14 are not referenced in the manuscript. Subsection 3.4 could be added to provide an analysis of the results in this section.
Also, the runoff values for 1981 (Fig. 13), 1983 and 1984 (Fig. 14) are high. The authors need to clarify the reason for this, is this an error?
20. Conclusions use (1) (2) (3).
21. Line 372. Please add fund information, this should have been established when the manuscript was completed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors, thanks for your revisions! In my opinion, these are insufficient. At least,
1) Subsection 2.1 is poor;
2) Findings are not separated from interpretations (sorry, I can't agree with seeing Results and Discussion as single section);
3) Literature additions are too few.
Please, address my previous comments and revise your work deeper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors, thanks a lot fo revisions! To me, this manuscript has reached the acceptable level. I only ask you to make your subsection 3.4 a new section 4. In other words, this should be 4. Discussion. This can be done at the stage of proof check.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
