Evaluation of Multiple Satellite, Reanalysis, and Merged Precipitation Products for Hydrological Modeling in the Data-Scarce Tributaries of the Pearl River Basin, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this study, the authors have evaluated multiple satellite, reanalysis and merged precipitation products for hydrologic modeling in data-scarce tributary basins of the Pearl River, China. Overall, the study is methodologically sound with promising results. Prior to further consideations, there are somethings to be addressed:
(i) Introduction: The research gap and research objectives are quite lacking in this study. Highlight the novelty of your studies. There are some relevant references which you may include in the introduction section:
(a) Usman, M., Ndehedehe, C.E., Farah, H., Ahmad, B., Wong, Y.J., et al (2022). Application of a Conceptual Hydrological Model for Streamflow Prediction Using Multi-Source Precipitation Products in a Semi-Arid River Basin. Water. 14(8), 1260. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14081260
(ii) Methodology: It maybe much easier if the authors can provide a flow chart to allow the readers to understand the structure of your scenarios.
(iii) Reasons of choosing these climate products but not others such as D4PDF
(iv) There are so many different performance criteria. One maybe having high error at specific performance criteria but able to archieve excellent in another. So how do you consider the best or most optimum climate products for most accurate simulation.
(v) Figs 3 to 6 showing the performance of the climate products. However, in-depth discussion maybe necessary as the current results only showing the numbers for different performance criteria but do not provide a strong discussion about them.
(vi) Provide the implications of the study for government or academicians.
(vii) Highlight the limitations of the study.
(viii) It might be better if you can remove the numbering in conclusion. And draw only the essence of the study/findings instead of repeating what has been written in the discussion section.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you very much for your time and patience, as well as your constructive comments and suggestions for greatly improving this manuscript. Overall, based on the feedbacks received, we have taken great revisions on all sections, and the related figures have been redesigned. For example, we have rewritten the Abstract, Introduction, Results and Discussion sections. Meanwhile, all the authors pay great attentions on the English grammar and expressions this time.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of On “Evaluation of multiple satellite, reanalysis and merged precipi-2 tation products for hydrologic modeling in data-scarce tributary basins of the Pearl River, China”
In this study, the authors have tried to evaluate the effectiveness of 9 satellite and reanalysis precipitation products from 2006 to 2018 in the study area for hydrological application. They have made a good effort to consider this issue. However, some points that may help to improve the current version of the article are given below.
Decision: minor
# It is suggested to state the most important numerical results(for example: rmse, bias , …) in the abstract so that the reader has a better understanding of the achievements of this study.
# section 2.2.2. Satellite-based and reanalysis precipitation products
# It is suggested to talk about the satellite data and how it was prepared and state whether you extracted it through Google Earth Engine?
Also, another point is that the temporal and spatial resolutions of some products are different, so talk a little about synchronizing them before statistical comparison with real data.
# in result section: It is suggested to prepare a table when evaluating different rainfall products and express their efficiency in the studied area in different rainfall intensities according to the studied statistics.
# In your opinion, what new information does the studying of the MAE statistic along with the RMSE statistic add to the reader? Explain a little about this
Author Response
Thank you very much for your time and patience, as well as your constructive comments and suggestions for greatly improving this manuscript. Overall, based on the feedbacks received, we have taken great revisions on all sections, and the related figures have been redesigned. For example, we have rewritten the Abstract, Introduction, Results and Discussion sections. Meanwhile, all the authors pay great attentions on the English grammar and expressions this time.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsExplain more about the CREST model used in the study.
Shift Table 2 and its description in the methodology part
In Table 2 change 'n' to 'N' in line 165. Explain ? & ? with their equation.'
Correct this sentence "The dashed lines in Figures b and c represent the regression lines." to "The dashed lines in Figures a represent the regression lines" in lilines 235 & 236.
Figures 2(b) and 2(c) can be merged if possible.
Rewire this sentence in line 241 to 245. It can be broken in two sentences.
"Figure 2(b), had a 99.98% probability exceedance, and the flow of 1490 (1750, 2780, 3980, and 6500, respectively) m3 /s had a 25% (20%, 10%, 5%, and 2%, respectively) probability exceedance in the Beijiang River basin. Figure 2(c) showed that the flow of 170 m3 /s had 99.98% probability exceedance, and the flow of 839 (971, 1440, 2030, and 3120, respectively) m3 /s has a 25% (20%, 10%, 5%, and 2%, respectively) probability exceedance in the Dongjiang River basin".
A methodological flow chart can be included in the methodology part to give more insight into the work.
Try to write sentences in past form as generally used in research papers.
Remove lines 94 to 96.
A separate grid map showing rainfall grids for different satellite products can be added.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor English editing is required as sentences use present tense which is not appropriate for a journal paper.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your time and patience, as well as your constructive comments and suggestions for greatly improving this manuscript. Overall, based on the feedbacks received, we have taken great revisions on all sections, and the related figures have been redesigned. For example, we have rewritten the Abstract, Introduction, Results and Discussion sections. Meanwhile, all the authors pay great attentions on the English grammar and expressions this time.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments to authors:
Overall, the authors have addressed my comments substantially. However, there are still some minor issues of the manuscript.
(i) Abstract: As i mentioned, it is better to start it with a line of the research gap and research novelty before sharing what is the objectives of the study.
(ii) Introduction: Quite well written but some statements seem to be overstated. For instance:
"This study will provide valuable guidelines for hydrometeorological applications and also be useful for water resources management and flood forecasting and prediction"
Since you only studied one basin, I think you may mention for better management in China. Unless you are proposing a new framework that can be adopted internationally.
(iii) Some relevant reference can be included in the introduction section: Evaluating the necessity of post-processing techniques on d4PDF data for extreme climate assessment.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you very much for your time and patience, as well as your constructive comments and suggestions for greatly improving this manuscript. Overall, based on the feedbacks received, we have taken great revisions on the relevant sections. Meanwhile, all the authors pay great attentions on the English grammar and expressions this time.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear athoures, well done.
I requested from you to explain a little more
About synchronization of different precipitation
Products with different temporal resolution but , I did not
Seen proper response in the revised version.!!!
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo specific suggestion now.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have substantially addressed the comments raised. The current manuscript reads better and ready for publication.
