Study on the Response Mechanism of Climate and Land Use Change to Evapotranspiration in Aksu River Basin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAnalysis of the article “Study on the response mechanism of climate and land use change to evapotranspiration in Aksu River Basin” submitted in Atmosphere MDPI. The article is based on an analysis of ET by PMF and its relationships with air temperature, relative humidity and precipitation. Comparisons with surface measurements (weather stations) and methods like Penman-Montheit FAO are not presented. Therefore, the article is based only on the spatio-temporal variation of the MOD-16 product. This is the main limitation – it would be important to make this comparison to understand the limitations both methodologies could have in the region.
- In the summary, the results do not need to be presented with numbers; text with sequential logic improves writing style;
- Keywords: avoid words already present in the title (Evapotranspiration and Aksu River Basin) – this metadata allows you to increase the article's search chances – use different words
Introduction: It should be improved by including recent articles that address evapotranspiration through remote sensing, with different algorithms and applications for other regions, aiming to support the use of MOD-16 as a basis for studies in river basins and environmental applications. Also, articles that address ET sensitivity analyses should be included to show the importance of correlations with the variables evaluated in the work.
- In Figure 3, insert averages and deviations for monthly values. Seek to discuss possible deviations. Due to the interdependence of water vapor pressures, the temperature and relative humidity curves must present a certain relationship between them. Although they are not presented together in Figure 3, it is observed that they present completely different seasonality between monthly maximums and minimums. Why does this happen in this river basin – check the data and explain.
- In Figure 5, which correlations were significant and what probability level was used? These tests are important to provide statistical security in the analyses.
- Conclusions must be more concise and respond to the objectives of the work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the manuscript under review the authors study the responses of evapotranspiration spatial and temporal characteristics to changes in climate factors and land use. They added relative humidity as a climate factor and used MOD16/ET product data, meteorological data, and three periods of land-use data from 2001 to 2020 in the Aksu River basin to provide scientific guidance for the efficient use of water resources and their precise allocation in the basin. The data used as well as the methods applied are described well. The results are presented in the form of graphs and maps which look very It is necessary to point the authors proved the correlations they are writing about rather satisfyingly. The paper is interesting and presents the results of good and deep work.
Concerning the remarks. The authors write about “global warming” as it is an axiom without any doubts. (l.32). May be, it will be better to write about “climate change” or “climate fluctuations”?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt is necessary to mention the often use by authors of abbreviations (ET, ARB). Of course, for authors it is shorter to write such abbreviations instead of “evapotranspiration” or “Aksu River basin”, but we are to think about the readers. For them – the reading of these words in their un-shortened, non-abbreviated forms is much more suitable and comfortable. Without the often use of abbreviations the paper will be more easily readable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverview and General Impression
The presented manuscript (MS) is dedicated to the description of the performed by the authors study of the evapotranspiration (ET) and its linkage with some main environmental (meteorological and land use) parameters in the Aksu River basin (ARB), NW China. This linkage is quantified statistically, calculating some widely used scores and performing hypothesis testing tests.
The subject of the study is important and well argued by the authors; the selected methodology is also reasonable.
Most generally, the work is well conceptualized and, as a result, well composed and written (despite the fact that the wording in some places is not precise enough) and illustrated. The length is acceptable, and the balance between the textual and graphical parts is suitable.
As its main strength, I could outline the proper selection of input data.
The MS fits well in the thematic scope of ‘Atmosphere' and has certain potential to attract readers.
During the review, I have not detected any general flaws or principal caveats. Thus, I have not included in this text a ‘Major remarks’ section. Nevertheless, I have some amendments, which should be addressed before the MS becomes publishable.
Remarks:
- First and foremost, it should be realized (and, subsequently, stated in the Introduction) that the study relies entirely on statistical methods which common weakness is the lack on physical contents. Thus, the revealed linkages (the typical example is high/low correlation) are NOT evidence for causality, in particular it is wrong to state (pointing these results solely) that these factors (say, the precipitation amount) are ‘drivers’ or ‘driving mechanisms’ (last sentence) of the ET. Subsequently, such wording should be avoided in the MS elsewhere.
- The M-K test and T-S method are partially misrepresented: the M-K test is hypothesis testing test, estimator of the statistical significance of the (linear) trend; the M-S method is estimator of the trend magnitude, i.e. the slope of the trend line. Thus, Subsubsection 2.3.1 should be rewritten, in particular (but not limited to):
-- wrong statement at r119-120: (the T-S says nothing about the significance)
-- r127: ... trend test is calculated ... → ... trend test parameters are calculated …
- r13: ‘M–K non-’ → Rule: write here Mann-Kendall and after the first mentioning in the text body introduce the abbreviations M-K and T-S.
- r100: .hdf and .tif are file extensions and not formats. Use HDF4 (or 5?) and TIFF instead.
- r106-107: Use something like ‘data in 1 km resolution in … units’. The present variant is blurry.
- r106: Put reference/citation of this dataset, not only URL.
Important: Put acknowledgment in acknowledgment section the to the NASA’s MODIS Land Cover data providers and to the National Earth System Science Data Centre of P.R.C. for the used data. Use the standard wording (proposed by them) for such cases.
The wording in some places of the text body is not precise enough.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is acceptable now.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCorrections were made based on suggestions from review 1. The authors responded to questions and clearly identified the changes made to the article.
