Improved the Characterization of Flood Monitoring Based on Reconstructed Daily GRACE Solutions over the Haihe River Basin
, Wei Zheng 1,2,3,*,†, Wenjie Yin 4,†, Yulong Zhong 5, Yifan Shen 1 and Kezhao Li 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, the daily flood monitoring indexes are proposed based on the reconstructed daily TWSA, aiming to assess the 2016 short-term flood event over the Haihe River basin. Moreover, the effectiveness and reliability are validated against GRACE solutions and water resources bulletin information, which can provide valuable reference for the short-term events caused by extreme climate change. In general, this research is interesting and meaningful, so minor revisions are suggested. Specific comments are as follows.
Specific comments.
- Line 31, the NSE indicator should be given its full name: Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient.
- Line 35, please use comma in english.
- Equation 14, the numerator part of the calculated NSE indicator should be given a superscript representing the square.
- What's the spatial resolution of your reconstructed TWSA? Is it enough to detect flood?
- The legend of Figure 6 can be moved to the blank of Figure 6(b).
- The symbol of flood center in Figure 11 is not clear.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The study investigates daily flood monitoring indexes as FPI, WSDI, CCDI from daily precipitation data for short term between 2004-2021. Haihe River Basin, China is selected for the application. The subject is very important and the study is valuable in terms of flood disaster but the novelty of the study is emphasized insufficiently. Some suggestions and comments to the authors are presented below:
1. The flow chart of the suggested methodology is looking as a graphical abstract. Its branches can be given in detail.
2. Conclusions part should be improved, it is too weak. Main conclusions of the study should be explained well.
3. What is the novelty of the paper? It should be emphasized in the paper. The used methodology in the paper is a traditional method in the flood protection studies.
4. Literature part is looking weak. Give new and last updated examples from literature about “flood” as
https://doi.org/10.18400/tekderg.416067
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912386
5. The motivation of the paper is missing. Which gap in the literature does this study fill?
6. The performance evaluation of the application results is weak in the study. More performance metrics should be added in the paper.
7. Statistical properties and statistical distribution characteristics of used data should be given with more detail in the paper. If there are zero values of data, they should be discussed and separated from data. Also, outliers should be investigated. For this aim, boxplots can be used.
8. Is the methodology valid for all problems in the paper? Are there any limitations for the application?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Here the authors present flood characterization using the reconstructed daily TWSA data and other auxiliary datasets in the Haihe River Basin. Although the content is significant and fits well with the journal's scope, there are several crucial aspects (e.g., uncertainty analysis and added discussions) that need substantial improvements before proceeding.
Please find further details in the attached PDF.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I suggest accepting the manuscript. The authors carefully revised the paper by answering each comment from the first round.
Reviewer 3 Report
I read through the revised manuscript and do not have further comments.
Please pay attention to minor English typos during the proof.
