Error Correction of Multi-Source Weighted-Ensemble Precipitation (MSWEP) over the Lancang-Mekong River Basin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

please find my comments on your manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your great efforts in reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable comments and suggestions. These comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have substantially revised the manuscript according to your comments and the detailed responses to the comments are described as follows. The revision process can also be seen in the file named “Manuscript with track changes.docx”. Moreover, we also invited a native English speaker with knowledge of hydrology to make a very detailed polish on this manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

As proposed in this study, spatially and universally observing or estimating and evaluating precipitation is definitely a product that is needed not only in the Mekong River basin but also in the whole world. In this point, I highly evaluate this research.

First of all, please indicate that the CMA and MRC data are available to the public, and also indicate the quality check so that we can understand.

Regarding Figure 2, I think you can add a discussion about spatial density. Also, would spatial deviations (Fig. 1), e.g., there are few observation points in the center of Cambodia, but there are many points in the lowest river (near river mouth), affect the results?

The figures and tables are very easy to read clearly in general, but in Figure 3, the white text is difficult to read and the meaning of the arrows should be described. Figure 4 is difficult to see because the blue color of the watershed boundary and the blue dot are the same color, so it would be better to change the color. The points in Figures 5 and 6 should not be filled in.

Some of the points in Figure 9 are way off, and I think it is possible to have a deeper discussion about them. Depending on the cause, it may be possible to remove them from this figure.

Finally, although the superiority of the proposed method is indeed clearly stated, I think it is necessary to quantitatively indicate whether the contribution of satellite data or observation data to the results is greater. In addition, I read that the purpose of the article is to evaluate long-term daily precipitation, but I wonder if the spatial interpolation results in an underestimation. Since there is no confirmation of the extreme value data, it would be better to clearly state in the paper that it is an evaluation of accumulated precipitation such as monthly and annual precipitation to avoid causing confusion among readers.

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your great efforts in reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable comments and suggestions. These comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have substantially revised the manuscript according to your comments and the detailed responses to the comments are described as follows. The revision process can also be seen in the file named “Manuscript with track changes.docx”. Moreover, we also invited a native English speaker with knowledge of hydrology to make a very detailed polish on this manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript provides an error correction approach that combines precipitation products, AgMERRA, APHRODITE, CHIRPS, MSWEP, and PERSIANN. This study resulted that the MSWEP-LS and MSWEP-QM products show better performance than traditional MSWEP precipitation product over the Lancang-Mekong River basin. This study has interesting topic, however, I see there are some loose ends in the manuscript. English should be edited. Also, there are points that were not adequately covered by the authors. In my opinion, the manuscript can be considered acceptable for publication in this journal after “major revisions”. Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your great efforts in reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable comments and suggestions. These comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have substantially revised the manuscript according to your comments and the detailed responses to the comments are described as follows. The revision process can also be seen in the file named “Manuscript with track changes.docx”. Moreover, we also invited a native English speaker with knowledge of hydrology to make a very detailed polish on this manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I went through your manuscript and in my view, it has been significantly improved. However, from the editing point of view, there is still a lot of work on your site. For now, the manuscript is not properly edited. That must be done before being published.

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your great efforts in reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable comments and suggestions. These comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research.

We have also checked this manuscript in detail from the perspective of a text editor. Thank you again for your comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for your effort in improving the manuscript. 

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your great efforts in reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable comments and suggestions. These comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research.