Accepted Guidelines on the Potential of Water Budgets for Solving Droughts: A Case Study of Chum Saeng Sub-District, Satuek District, Buri Ram Province, Thailand
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The manuscript has improved substantially, but I believe that there are still aspects that need to be clarified and improved in order for it to be accepted. Specifically, in Figure 3, the topography should be specified as it appears to be a low-slope plain, which is likely the reason why the arrows are pointing in all directions. Additionally, on line 228, it is unclear which draft of guidelines for managing water resources within the study area is being referred to and how it serves the manuscript. Furthermore, there is no explanation provided regarding how the storage and other components of the balance were measured to generate the R2. It would be helpful to know the uncertainty associated with these measurements and how it was propagated. What is the statistical validity range of the performed balances?
It is necessary to improve the fluency of the English in the manuscript since there are ideas that seem disconnected from each other. The text lacks cohesion and may be difficult for readers to follow. To address this issue, it would be helpful to revise the wording and structure of the sentences to ensure that the ideas flow logically and smoothly from one to another.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We really appreciate the reviewers' comments (reviewer-1 and reviewer-3), which are very detailed and very helpful in improving our manuscript. We have improved our manuscript following the reviewer's comments.
Sincerely,
Anongrit Kangrang
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Thank you no more comments
Thanks
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We really appreciate the reviewers' comments (reviewer-1 and reviewer-3), which are very detailed and very helpful in improving our manuscript. We have improved our manuscript following the reviewer's comments.
Sincerely,
Anongrit Kangrang
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Please see attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We really appreciate the reviewers' comments (reviewer-1 and reviewer-3), which are very detailed and very helpful in improving our manuscript. We have improved our manuscript following the reviewer's comments.
Sincerely,
Anongrit Kangrang
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you please find attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Improve the overall writing: The manuscript needs significant improvement in its writing to ensure that the ideas are clearly communicated. The reader should be able to follow the author's arguments and ideas without difficulty.
Provide background information in the abstract: The abstract should provide a brief background description of the research problem before outlining the purpose of the study. This will help readers to understand the context of the research and why it is important.
Provide a clear and concise summary of the research: The abstract should clearly and concisely summarize the most important aspects of the research, including the novel methods and findings.
Emphasize scientific significance and originality: The manuscript should emphasize the scientific significance and originality of the research, highlighting how it adds to existing knowledge in the field.
Finally, the introduction of the manuscript needs to be revised to provide a clear and coherent structure with a logical flow of ideas. A clear and concise problem statement should be presented at the beginning to help readers understand the main argument of the manuscript.
Line 46: There is redundancy in "main factor important".
In general, the manuscript needs to improve the estimation of the water balance both in its description and application. Firstly, it is unclear why a water balance was conducted without considering water consumption, which is an important component in many watersheds. A water balance integrates all inputs and outputs of a water system, including water consumption. Additionally, the manuscript lacks information on the procedures for data quality control and assurance, as well as the calibration of the water balance. While statistical indicators such as R2 are mentioned, it is unclear what values were used for comparison. Furthermore, the manuscript does not explain how water demands and other components of the water balance were calculated.
The results of the water balance are not well explained, as comparative figures only show full storage, without providing information on other types of storage such as dead storage. It is unclear what is meant by dead storage and how it relates to the study area. Moreover, the manuscript lacks information on the areas of plantations within the study area, which are essential for understanding water demands and the impact of agricultural activities on the water balance.
The physical maps mentioned in the manuscript are also unclear, and it is unclear whether they represent groundwater flow lines or other features. Providing more detailed information on the physical maps would help readers understand their significance and relevance to the study.
The manuscript contains numerous figures, and it is recommended to focus on the most important ones and provide precise information. The manuscript should emphasize the water balance and its application, as well as the implications and future research directions. The images related to citizen participation may not be necessary, given the stated objectives in the introduction.
To improve the manuscript, the authors should consider selecting the most informative figures that are directly related to the water balance and its application. These figures should be presented in a clear and concise manner, with a brief explanation of their significance in the context of the research.
The manuscript should also provide a more detailed discussion of the water balance and its application, including the methods used for estimating the water balance components and any assumptions made in the analysis. The implications of the water balance results should be clearly stated and discussed in relation to the study area and its specific characteristics.
Finally, the manuscript should include a section on future research directions and opportunities for further investigation. This section should highlight areas where more data are needed, as well as potential applications of the water balance analysis in other watersheds or regions.
In the discussion section, it is important to explain what the results mean in relation to what is already known and highlight how the results support or refute current hypotheses in the field, if any. More references should be added to this section, emphasizing how the results significantly advance the field. A limitations section should also be included that explains any limitations the hypothesis or experimental approach of the study may have and the reason behind it. This will help the field generate hypotheses and new approaches without facing the same challenges. The discussion becomes more complete when emphasizing not only the impact of the study, but also where it may have limitations. It is suggested to pose some questions or directions, preferably in the form of hypotheses, to provide a starting point for future research. Currently, the discussions are still very descriptive and do not achieve adequate generalization to other similar sites. any similar studies have been widely reported. What is the new finding or approach in this study? Compared to the vast literature, it should explicitly specify the innovation in methodologies and results. What are the innovations provided by the manuscript?
The Results section of the manuscript contains a significant amount of methodology, as seen in lines 187-198. To improve the manuscript, the authors should consider presenting the methods in a separate section, such as the Methods section, and focus on the results and their interpretation in the Results section.
Regarding line 178, it is unclear whether the direction of the water flows refers to surface water or groundwater. The authors should provide additional information to clarify this point. If the direction of water flows is related to surface water, the authors should explain how this information was obtained and its significance for the study. If it pertains to groundwater, the authors should provide more details on the hydrogeological characteristics of the study area and how they relate to the direction of groundwater flow.
Furthermore, the manuscript should provide more context and detail on the results presented in the Results section. The authors should clearly explain the significance of the results in the context of the research question and provide a clear interpretation of the findings. This should include a discussion of any unexpected or contradictory results, as well as potential explanations for these findings.
Additionally, the manuscript should include a detailed discussion of the implications of the results for water resource management in the study area, and how the findings could be applied in other regions or watersheds.
There are numerous areas in the manuscript that require improvement, but the water balance calculation must be clarified before the manuscript can be published.
