Evaluation of Hydrological Simulation in a Karst Basin with Different Calibration Methods and Rainfall Inputs
, Yafang Wang 1,2,3, Yuli Ruan 1,2,3, Shufeng Lai 1,2,3 and Zhenxiang Xing 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Evaluation of Hydrological Simulation in Karst Basin with Different Calibration Methods and Precipitation Inputs
- Lines -44-46: What are the current trends on the use and development of SWAT? Align your background information with latest trends and capabilities of SWAT.
- Line 66-68: Citation of Zao is not correctly presented. Further, how certain are you that the author’s gender is male?
- Line 68-71: IMERG-F, 3B42V7 and IMERG, must first be explained before the abbreviations are used in subsequent paragraphs.
- Line 87-93: Information presented under this paragraph is not necessary and therefore, it is redundant! It is obvious to any reader on how sections in a manuscript are arranged, since they follow a known logical sequence.
For section 1 (line 1-93), bring out the background of your study by building a case that entices a reader. The research gap is not well articulated though strong points that can help are embedded in some sub sections.
- Line 98-99: The sentence “The Chengbi River basin covers an area of 2087km2, and the rainwater collection area of Chengbi River reservoir is 2000km2” presents some good information. however, without isolating the spot heights of raised features and none contributing natural areas, including areas covered by the streams, this figure can be misleading.
- Synchronize with subsequent information presented after line 99.
- Innovatively include the map of China as part of Figure 1. Station distribution map of Chengbi River basin.
- Line 126: How can a reader not conversant with GIS read and interpret “GDEMV2 30m”. Does 30 m represent the spatial resolution???
- Line 208 and 209: Is this “HRUs (hydrological research units)” correct? You better use the common terminology.
- Before line 332, present the sensitivity analysis results
- Line 419-420: when ccomparing the performances of GWR fusion precipitation data and the measured precipitation data, difference between them was found not to be However, a statistical analysis to support this statement is missing and therefore, it cannot be accepted in this form. The same mistake is repeated between lines 421 and 433. A detailed analysis of significance different is necessary to help in proper discussion of the findings.
- Line 488: Why is a karst basin considered a complex basin? Your response should resonate well with other types of basins.
- Your conclusions are too lengthy and cumbersome to read. Avoid repetition by explaining the process and the results in your conclusions
- An extensive revision of English by a native English speaker is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1-Add 'Karst" in Keywords.
2-Use the numbers for highlighting the results in Abdtract.
3-You used Precipitation in title. You used Snow dara?
4-Add the limitation of the paper in Introduction End.
5-Add a Table including Rainfall and Hydrometric Stations characteristics: Elevation, lat., Long., Record Length.
6-Change "Hydrological Station" to "Hydrometric Station:.
7-Reference 31 is incomplete.
8-Reference 43: Add "China".
9-What about sensitivity Analysis of the results?
10-Please add below reference:
-Akhavan S., Abedi-Koupai, J, Mousavi, S, F., Afyuni, M., Eslamian, S. S. and K. C. Abbaspour, 2010, Application of SWAT model to investigate nitrate leaching in Hamadan–Bahar Watershed, Iran, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, Vol. 139, 675-688.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
NA
