Evaluation of Clumping Effects on the Estimation of Global Terrestrial Evapotranspiration
, Xuehe Lu 2, Shaoqiang Wang 1,3,4,*, Jing M. Chen 5,6, Yang Liu 7, Hongliang Fang 3,7, Zhenhai Liu 4, Fei Jiang 8, Muhammad Altaf Arain 9, Jinghua Chen 1 and Xiaobo Wang 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper about Evaluation of clumping effects on the estimation of global terrestrial evapotranspiration brings a series of novelties regarding the role played by this phenomenon on the evapotranspiration capacity at the surface of the earth's crust. The authors well structured the paper but need some improvement of the English language used. For example at row 68 they use this expression "using the famous Penman-Monteith". This formula is very used but not famous. Also the title of chapter 3.1. "Meteorology data" can be rewritten as Meteorological data and so on. The chapter 6.1 and 6.2 from discussion part can be moved into results part and chapter 6.3 the real discussion part can be more developed.
The conclusion part started with this expression "we used". Is quite improper to use this style in a scientific paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
SUMMARY
The paper addresses the research area related to the evaluation of clumping effects on the estimation of global terrestrial evapotranspiration.
It aims to assess leaf clumping effects on estimating global terrestrial ET; to assess leaf clumping effects on the calculation of key biophysical parameters controlling ET simulation, and to evaluate the robustness of leaf clumping effects with errors in key model parameters.
The author claim that this study highlights the importance of considering leaf clumping in estimating global terrestrial ET, which would be helpful to improve the quality of global terrestrial ET product derived from various land surface models.
BROAD COMMENTs
As a general comment, the manuscript is fluent and well structured.
MINOR COMMENTs
L140, L196-L197. Please, consider specifying the height of Ta and wind speed measurements (Ten or two meters?).
L195 Please, consider inserting some images of the gridded meteorological data (if available)
L489 Please, consider inserting more details about the two machine learning methods and LSM models considered for the ET comparison.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article has an important scientific impact on both forestry and environmental engineers and researchers. There are some minor comments:
OVERALL COMMENT: Please pay attention to the journal template.
ABSTRACT: Please explain more in detail CASE I, CASE II, and CASE III.
INTRODUCTION: Please make some examples of direct application of your research, based on the scientific background: i.e., the knowledge of experimental LAI is crucial in ecohydraulic research
i.e., 1. Lama, G.F.C.; Rillo Migliorini Giovannini, M.; Errico, A.; Mirzaei, S.; Padulano, R.; Chirico, G.B.; Preti, F. Hydraulic Efficiency of Green-Blue Flood Control Scenarios for Vegetated Rivers: 1D and 2D Unsteady Simulations. Water 2021, 13, 2620, https://doi.org/10.3390/w13192620.
2. Box, W.; Järvelä, J.; Västilä, K. Flow resistance of floodplain vegetation mixtures for modelling river flows. J. Hydrol. 2021, 601, 126593, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126593.
RESULTS: Please replace Figure 7 with a higher-definition figure, and pay attention to the overlap between the bars and the text. The reader is confused by these issues. Please consider the same indications for Figure 8.
I accept the manuscript after minor revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
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.
