Evaluation of InVEST’s Water Ecosystem Service Models in a Brazilian Subtropical Basin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I was tasked to provide my expert opinions for the submission of Phelipe et al. entitled "Evaluation of InVEST’s Water Ecosystem Service Models in a 2 Brazilian Subtropical Basin". My comments will primarily focus on the evaluation of hydrological ecosystem services and numerical modeling, being the domains of my expertise alongside the general scientific quality of the work. 

 

My general impression of the manuscript is positive with the demonstrated merits including clear structure, well-defined objectives, clearly-elaborated methods, and results. Language is also readable, though with typos here and there. It is recommended that the authors can have their work proofread prior to submitting the revised version. I will not go into details about these typos since it is beyond the responsibility of a content reviewer. I include herewith some of my suggestions, questions for the authors to address while revising their work following a "Major Revisions" Decision. 

 

1. Abstract: Please include some numerical results, especially the calibration and validation.
2. The abbreviations should be re-explained again for the main texts. The abstract is a separate part of the manuscript. 
3. WES ==> consider revising to hydrological ecosystem services as it is already an official term. 
4. LIne 75 - 78. Calibration and Validation is already the comparison between simulations and observations. The sentence makes no sense. 
5. Line 71  - 78. So why do we need to evaluate the model performance? What would be the benefits in terms of scientific research and decision-making? Also, can someone not working in Brazil benefit from your work? Since Water is an international journal, the readership is worldwide, limiting the significance to only your study area will not be justifiable. 
6. Figure 1. Please include the name of the stations you used for calibration and validation. DEM: what are the units? Also, please put a scale bar for the inset map on the top-right corner. 
7. 2.1. Study area. The authors explain the natural conditions of the area. However,  you do not explain the importance of the basin in terms of hydrology, ecology, or the list of ecosystem services that the basin is providing. You should explain the motivation for your selection. 
8. Line 286. The IDs of the sub-basins make no sense to me. How do you expect a reader can tell where is which? A map is required if you want to be explicit about the locations of these sub-basins
9. Line 291. The basins's annual stream flow was evaluated? How? What methods? What measurements?
10. Calibration and Validation. In Hydrological Modeling, normally the calibration for streamflow was done via daily measurements. I am not sure if calibration using annual records would have any values. Citations of similar approaches are required to back up your approach. 
11. Figure 3. Please enhance the quality of the plots. They are now pixelated due to low resolution. 
12. Calibration and Validation Results. The results in table 2 are not satisfactory in hydrological measurements. Can we improve these results further? 
13. Discussions. In line with my general concern, the authors are recommended to add 1 more section explaining the benefits of their work with respect to supporting policies or decision-making processes. Because calibrating and validating of a packaged model is not significant. 
14. LIne 455 electing ?? --> do the authors mean selecting?
15. Line 461 In regard --> With regard. These mistakes occur in multiple places. 
16.  

 

 

Author Response

We extend our thanks to the editor and reviewers for their invaluable comments and have revised the manuscript in their light. Our responses follow.

COMMENTS FROM THE REVIEWERS

REVIEWER #1:

My general impression of the manuscript is positive with the demonstrated merits including clear structure, well-defined objectives, clearly-elaborated methods, and results. Language is also readable, though with typos here and there. It is recommended that the authors can have their work proofread prior to submitting the revised version. I will not go into details about these typos since it is beyond the responsibility of a content reviewer. I include herewith some of my suggestions, questions for the authors to address while revising their work following a "Major Revisions" Decision.

Response

Thank you for your valued comments. The manuscript has been reviewed and revised to eliminate typographical errors.

Abstract: Please include some numerical results, especially the calibration and validation.

Response

Numerical results in the abstract were not included in the abstract, as we examined four water ecosystem services and applied three statistical indicators to evaluate the model’s performance. Thus the abstract would be considerably longer were such details included and could distract the reader`s straightforward understanding of the manuscript`s content.

The abbreviations should be re-explained again for the main texts. The abstract is a separate part of the manuscript.

Response

The explanation of abbreviations in the abstract have been reiterated in the body,

WES ==> consider revising to hydrological ecosystem services as it is already an official term.

Response

While there is no exclusive term used to describe services generated by aquatic ecosystems or their interaction with terrestrial ecosystems, the principal terms found in the literature include water ecosystem services, hydrological ecosystem services, and freshwater ecosystem services (Brauman et al., 2007; Green et al., 2015; Aznar-Sánchez et al., 2019).  As this manuscript is part of an ongoing, comprehensive research project o investigate the synergistic effects of climate change and land use on such ecosystem services, we deem the term “water ecosystem services” most appropriate, in accordance with Grizzetti et al., 2016.

Reference

Aznar-Sánchez, J. A., Velasco-Muñoz, J. F., Belmonte-Ureña, L. J., Manzano-Agugliaro, F., 2019. The worldwide research trends on water ecosystem services. Ecological indicators, 99, 310-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.12.045

Brauman, K. A., Daily, G. C., Duarte, T. K. E., Mooney, H. A., 2007. The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 32, 67-98. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.32.031306.102758

Green, P. A., Vörösmarty, C. J., Harrison, I., Farrell, T., Sáenz, L., Fekete, B. M., 2015. Freshwater ecosystem services supporting humans: Pivoting from water crisis to water solutions. Global Environmental Change, 34, 108-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.06.007

Grizzetti, B., Lanzanova, D., Liquete, C., Reynaud, A., Cardoso, A. C., 2016. Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management. Environmental Science & Policy, 61, 194-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.04.008

Line 75 - 78. Calibration and Validation is already the comparison between simulations and observations. The sentence makes no sense.

 

 

Response

We have revised the sentence accordingly as follows: “The specific objectives were to assess the models’ sensitivity to variation in calibration parameters, calibrate and validate the models, and evaluate the performance of the models.”

Line 71-78. So why do we need to evaluate the model performance? What would be the benefits in terms of scientific research and decision-making? Also, can someone not working in Brazil benefit from your work? Since Water is an international journal, the readership is worldwide, limiting the significance to only your study area will not be justifiable.

Response

The model’s performance assessment is necessary to provide information about the model's behavior to users in further research and to inform public policies and decision-making. While the study was conducted in a Brazilian basin, the discussion and conclusions support international users as a reference regardless of their study area.    

Figure 1. Please include the name of the stations you used for calibration and validation. DEM: what are the units? Also, please put a scale bar for the inset map on the top-right corner.

Response.

The stations name, DEM units, and a scale bar for the inset map have been included.

2.1. Study area. The authors explain the natural conditions of the area. However, you do not explain the importance of the basin in terms of hydrology, ecology, or the list of ecosystem services that the basin is providing. You should explain the motivation for your selection.

Response

The basin’s general characteristics are described in section 2.1. Points mentioned in the manuscript to indicate the importance of the study area include the following: The basin’s principal waterway is the, Jacaré-Guaçu River, which is an affluent of Tietê River, the major watercourse in São Paulo State, and is part of the “water resources management unit of the State of São Paulo, unit 13” (UGRHI 13). The basin is located in the recharge area of Guarani Aquifer, one of the world’s largest underground freshwater reservoirs. There are reservoirs for multiple uses in the basin, most notably the Lobo reservoir, which is  classified in the Long-Term Ecological Research Program of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Tundisi and Matsumura-Tundisi, 2014). In addition, the basin is under intense process of land use change due to the agricultural frontier expansion, which jeopardizes the ecosystems and their associate services.

Reference

Tundisi, J.G., Matsumura-Tundisi, T., 2014. The ecology of UHE Carlos Botelho (Lobo-Broa Reservoir) and its watershed, São Paulo, Brazil. Freshw. Rev. 6, 75–91.

Line 286. The IDs of the sub-basins make no sense to me. How do you expect a reader can tell where is which? A map is required if you want to be explicit about the locations of these sub-basins

Response

The station IDs have been revised and added to the map (Figure 1).

Line 291. The basins's annual stream flow was evaluated? How? What methods? What measurements?

Response

According to item 2.3.1, the streamflow parameter is defined as the sum of QF (quickflow) and BF (baseflow), from the SWY model. To clarify the text, it has been revised to: “The average annual streamflow (QF + BF) results in mm year-1 simulated by the SWY model were converted to m³ s-1 and compared with observed values. The calibration period was 1981 to 2010 and the validation period, 2011 to 2019.”

Calibration and Validation. In Hydrological Modeling, normally the calibration for streamflow was done via daily measurements. I am not sure if calibration using annual records would have any values. Citations of similar approaches are required to back up your approach.

Response

In hydrological modeling, the database customarily comprises a historical series of daily measurements. The InVEST SWY model, however, operates on an annual scale. As the study assesses performance the InVEST WES models performance, we did not alter their input data format. Other studies, cited in this study, have employed a similar approach.   

Reference

Benra, F., De Frutos, A., Gaglio, M., Álvarez-Garretón, C., Felipe-Lucia, M., Bonn, A. Mapping water ecosystem services: Evaluating InVEST model predictions in data scarce regions. Environmental Modelling & Software. 2021, 138, 104982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.104982 

Hamel, P., Valencia, J., Schmitt, R., Shrestha, M., Piman, T., Sharp, R. P., Guswa, A. J. Modeling seasonal water yield for landscape management: Applications in Peru and Myanmar. Journal of Environmental Management. 2020, 270, 110792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110792

Huiting, Lu., Yan, Y., Jieyuan, Zhu., Tiantian, Jin., Guohua, Liu., Gang, Wu., Lindsay, C. S., Dallimer, M. Spatiotemporal water yield variations and influencing factors in the Lhasa River Basin, Tibetan Plateau. Water, 2020, 12(5), 1498. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051498

Wang, Z., Lechner, A. M., Baumgartl, T. Ecosystem services mapping uncertainty assessment: A case study in the Fitzroy Basin mining region. Water. 2018, 10(1), 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10010088

Figure 3. Please enhance the quality of the plots. They are now pixelated due to low resolution.

Response

The quality of Figure 3 has been enhanced.

Calibration and Validation Results. The results in table 2 are not satisfactory in hydrological measurements. Can we improve these results further?

Response

We attempted to achieve optimal results, varying the calibration parameters for better fit. However, calibration and validation is a considerable challenge in InVEST models since their simulation is based on few parameters and thus highly sensible to input data. Accordingly, the uncertainties related to the available input data and of observed data are discussed, and the model’s limitations in this regard are presented in the manuscript.

Discussions. In line with my general concern, the authors are recommended to add 1 more section explaining the benefits of their work with respect to supporting policies or decision-making processes. Because calibrating and validating of a packaged model is not significant.

Response

According to the principal objective of the study, which was to assess the InVEST model’s performance in WES simulation, the discussion of its potentials and limitations, considering it is a favorable tool to policy formulation and decision making, as indicated in reference citation. Besides, this manuscript is part of a larger project that aims to investigate the synergistic effects of climate change and land use on ecosystem services, so this discussion would not fit the content at this moment.

Line 455 electing ?? --> do the authors mean selecting?

Response

The sentence has been revised as follows: “Unlike other studies that analyzed the sensitivity of calibration parameters and input data [27, 60, 61], this study examined just the calibration parameters sensitivity, choosing not to analyze the sensitivity of the input data because the vast bulk came from monitoring stations, which tend to have higher quality than other databases.”

 

Line 461 In regard --> With regard. These mistakes occur in multiple places.

Response

Although the two terms can be used interchangeably, the reviewer’s preference has been adopted.  

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Line 52-55, need more clarification and it is hard to understand the statement
2. The benefits and scope of the present research was missing in the introduction section 
3. Average annual precipitation is mismatching with figure.2, Check and rewrite it 
4. Improve quality of the fig.3 
5. Add reference in Line 524 to 533 and compare your results with previous study 
6. Conclusion part is too vast and it should be satisfy the international reader.

 

Author Response

We extend our thanks to the editor and reviewers for their invaluable comments and have revised the manuscript in their light. Our responses follow.

COMMENTS FROM THE REVIEWERS

 

Line 52-55, need more clarification and it is hard to understand the statement

Response

Thanks for your valued comments. In the sentence in question, we mentioned some simple models that do not require a great amount of data or highly specialized personnel, which are often used in studies, and pointed out that InVEST is one of the most widely used in modeling ecosystem services.

The benefits and scope of the present research was missing in the introduction section

Response

The introduction was organized in a manner that enables the reader to understand the importance of assessing the Invest WES model’s performance. Its structure addresses this end as follows:

• 1^st paragraph: importance of WES-based approach for water planning and management
• 2^nd paragraph: biophysical modeling within the WES approach and the importance of model’s calibration and validation
• 3^rd and 4^th paragraphs: the variety of models, some more complex and dependent on a greater quantity of data, and others simpler, such as InVEST, which is used in this study but whose performance is rarely examined in the literature
• 5^th paragraph: importance of assessing the InVEST model’s performance to users and researchers.
• 6^th paragraph: the objectives of the study, which are to calibrate and validate the InVEST models, noting that researchers in Brazil are initiating this approach
• 7^th paragraph: expected impacts of the study in international research context.

 

 

Average annual precipitation is mismatching with figure.2, Check and rewrite it.

Response

Figure 2 presents the accumulated monthly average and the value of 1400 mm presented in text refers to the accumulated annual average, matching the sum of the monthly average. 

Improve quality of the fig.3

Response

The quality of the figure 3 has been enhanced.

Add reference in Line 524 to 533 and compare your results with previous study

Response

References have been added and our results discussed subsequently as follows:

Compared with observed long-term average values, the results were similar to those in the literature [13, 24, 25, 27, 28], indicating that InVEST WES models generate good results in terms of relative magnitude. The SWY model performed best with simulated long-term average flow deviations of less than 10% from observed values. The greatest discrepancy was recorded in sub-basin SF-II, which overestimated 11%. These results confirm the findings of other studies that have shown reasonable performance for the SWY model [13, 28, 29]. The long-term average loads of exported sediments simulated by the SDR model also showed limited discrepancies with observed values, corroborating studies that have featured its potential to simulate sediment dynamics [24, 25, 66]. The greatest deviations in NDR model simulations were found in sub-basins WQ-1 and WQ-III, which overestimated TN and TP exports by 50% and 32%, respectively. Redhead et al. [27] obtained similar results in UK watersheds, with the vast majority showing deviations from observed values of TN and TP of 65% and 44%, respectively.

Conclusion part is too vast and it should be satisfy the international reader

Response

The principal purpose of this study was to assess the performance of the InVEST models, identifying its potentialities and limitations. We believe the manuscript will aid users of these tools, seeking to inform public policies and decision making and also help  researchers and software developers to improve them. The conclusion summarizes the discussions and results, highlighting the way they could be useful to the scientific community.

Reviewer 3 Report

Paper title is a very interesting and this research can be helpful to water ecosystem service.

1. In abstract line no.18-21 check the English language .
2. In line no. 28 author should add one reference - reference-https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-68124-1
3. The line no 41 another one reference add- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13201-021-01425-1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1658077X21000321
4. Some sentences very poor cited by authors, add the refences and improve it.
5. The line 60 -68 check it? errors in Grammar
6. Overall paper quality good and interesting work done by authors, However I have accepted the article with minor revision. 
7.  

Author Response

We extend our thanks to the editor and reviewers for their invaluable comments and have revised the manuscript in their light. Our responses follow.

COMMENTS FROM THE REVIEWERS

 

In abstract line no.18-21 check the English language

Response

Thanks for your valued comments. The lines in question have been reviewed and revised.

In line no. 28 author should add one reference - reference-https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-68124-1

The line no 41 another one reference add- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13201-021-01425-1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1658077X21000321

Response

Upon consideration, we believe that these references are not suitable to the text’s context.  

The line 60 -68 check it? errors in Grammar

Response.

 The ´lines have been reviewed and revised.

Reviewer 4 Report

This is an original manuscript, which deals with an interesting topic to the readers. The presentation and length are satisfactory and informative. The introduction provides sufficient background and includes all relevant references. It is a well-organized and concise manuscript and is worthy of publication, however a minor improvement is needed. The Conclusions section could be revised into more details enhancing your contributions, limitations of your paper and you should provide some proposals for improvement and future work proposals.

Author Response

We extend our thanks to the editor and reviewers for their invaluable comments and have revised the manuscript in their light. Our responses follow.

COMMENTS FROM THE REVIEWERS

 

This is an original manuscript, which deals with an interesting topic to the readers. The presentation and length are satisfactory and informative. The introduction provides sufficient background and includes all relevant references. It is a well-organized and concise manuscript and is worthy of publication, however a minor improvement is needed. The Conclusions section could be revised into more details enhancing your contributions, limitations of your paper and you should provide some proposals for improvement and future work proposals.

Thanks for your valuable comments. The conclusion was revised and the suggestions were incorporated as suggested.

 

"This study investigated the performance of InVEST 3.9.0 WES models, analyzing their ability to represent the spatial and temporal variability of observed values. The results show a high variability in their performance, according to the type of water ecosystem services simulated and scales of analysis. The best performance was observed for the SWY model, which effectively represented the spatial and temporal variability of the average annual streamflow in the analyzed sub-basins. The SDR and NDR models were unable to represent the temporal variability of the exported loads of sediments and nutrients. The inferior performance of these models may be associated with lower sensitivity to precipitation variability. The NDR model, in particular, appears insensitive to annual variations in precipitation, which impact the annual load of nutrients exported in the basin.

The spatial performance considering specific WES values was low for most statistical indicators. In general, with the exception of some sub-basins, all models showed good performance in simulating long-term mean values, which corroborates the results of other studies.

Properly calibrating models parameters is essential to enhancing their performance, and the values the study assigned to them reflected the basin’s hydrogeological characteristics. Uncertainties regarding the methodology used for calibration and validation relate to the quality of the historical series of observed data of daily and monthly streamflow and inadequate water quality sampling data, as well as the failure to measure streamflow data. While the study attempted to circumvent such obstacles, uncertainties remain, and the results should be interpreted with circumspection. Furthermore, some findings may be solely empirical, as the study area lacks broad hydrogeological variability.

Despite the uncertainties and empirical nature of this study, its results and discussions should aid researchers and other users of Invest models to inform and make decisions and formulate policies. To minimize uncertainties and enhance results, the use of the complete historical series of streamflow and, particularly of water quality parameters is recommended to better reflect the basin's hydrological characteristics and correspond to simulated data. In as much as the performance of the models may vary according to the hydrogeological nature of the region in which they are being applied, further research in varied basins in diverse regions should be conducted to complement the findings detailed herein."

Reviewer 5 Report

General

The article’s topic is interesting in the context of modelling the water ecosystem services in subtropical area. Unfortunately, in the present form the manuscript is very weak and requires many changes. The hypothesis are lacking. The presentation of the results and, most of all, the language of the paper, especially in the chapter 'Results' is very much in a style of a student’s presentation during a seminar (i.e. “result of parameter .... was higher than .... which was lower”), and not in a professional, scientific language which may be accepted in scientific journals. This is a very big drawback of the paper which probably reflects the lacking experience of the authors in writing scientific publications.    

In my opinion in text are too many numerical values and abbreviations (mainly without explanation in the right place), which hampers rapid understanding of the results. In many cases, these abbreviations are not needed and full names can be given in figures and text. The chaos in the text is also caused by full name of monitoring stations in form IDs eg. 62772500. If the reader is to understand the message, it must be clearer. I propose to collect all stations in a table and give them codes, e.g. Roman numbers (further in the text and tables use only codes). 

The number of literature items in part is unfit for aim and range of paper (only less than half of 72 were used in the Discussion).

In the current form, the information density in the manuscript is too low for an international, academic audience. In many places in the Introduction, Results, Discussion and Conclusion similar phrases are repeated. Additionally, the Discussion section included many of the results.

The captions of all figures and tables are incomplete. The text of a caption must contain a complete set of information so that the reader can understand the content without the help of the paper.

Supplementary materials in current form have not sense.

The English needs improvement by a native English speaker in the context of style and especially too high fragmentation of the text (there are too many short paragraphs and subsections). Furthermore, the manuscript really needs to be thoroughly checked by a native speaker in order to improve readability of the text and to facilitate interpretation of the research findings.

Generally, manuscript must be reorganized, revised and some sections must be written anew.

Specific comments: see the manuscript.

Major revisions must be implemented before the manuscript can be considered for publication. The structure of manuscript must be changed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We extend our thanks to the editor and reviewers for their invaluable comments and have revised the manuscript in their light. Our responses follow.

The article’s topic is interesting in the context of modelling the water ecosystem services in subtropical area. Unfortunately, in the present form the manuscript is very weak and requires many changes. The hypothesis are lacking. The presentation of the results and, most of all, the language of the paper, especially in the chapter 'Results' is very much in a style of a student’s presentation during a seminar (i.e. “result of parameter .... was higher than .... which was lower”), and not in a professional, scientific language which may be accepted in scientific journals. This is a very big drawback of the paper which probably reflects the lacking experience of the authors in writing scientific publications.  

In my opinion in text are too many numerical values and abbreviations (mainly without explanation in the right place), which hampers rapid understanding of the results. In many cases, these abbreviations are not needed and full names can be given in figures and text. The chaos in the text is also caused by full name of monitoring stations in form IDs eg. 62772500. If the reader is to understand the message, it must be clearer. I propose to collect all stations in a table and give them codes, e.g. Roman numbers (further in the text and tables use only codes).

The number of literature items in part is unfit for aim and range of paper (only less than half of 72 were used in the Discussion).

In the current form, the information density in the manuscript is too low for an international, academic audience. In many places in the Introduction, Results, Discussion and Conclusion similar phrases are repeated. Additionally, the Discussion section included many of the results.

The captions of all figures and tables are incomplete. The text of a caption must contain a complete set of information so that the reader can understand the content without the help of the paper.

Supplementary materials in current form have not sense.

The English needs improvement by a native English speaker in the context of style and especially too high fragmentation of the text (there are too many short paragraphs and subsections). Furthermore, the manuscript really needs to be thoroughly checked by a native speaker in order to improve readability of the text and to facilitate interpretation of the research findings.

Generally, manuscript must be reorganized, revised and some sections must be written anew.

Response

Thanks for your valued comments. Responses to general comments follow. :

• “The hypothesis are lacking”

The study’s purpose was to assess the model’s performance, so other users could have a better understanding of its potentialities and limitations. As mentioned in the introduction, there are few studies in literature that investigate this aspect, as most focus on applications. If the reviewer refers to a hypothesis, in the sense of an objective answer, we believe that is not suitable to the approach of this study. These tools can be used in different contexts. Accordingly, its applicability depends on users evaluation.   

 

• “The presentation of the results and, most of all, the language of the paper, especially in the chapter 'Results' is very much in a style of a student’s presentation”

We believe that writing has an individual aspect, even for native English writers, and, to our understanding, the manuscript follows the general guidelines of a scientific paper, aiming at objectiveness and clarity. The author of this manuscript has published in other periodicals, and the supervisor has 95 journal publications and 1143 citations.  

 

• “in text are too many numerical values and abbreviations”

Numerical results mentioned throughout the text have the purpose of easing the understanding for readers, so that they are not compelled to interrupt reading to consult tables. Abbreviations were revised to note their meaning in their firsdt instance.

 

• “The chaos in the text is also caused by full name of monitoring stations in form IDs eg. 62772500”

Station's IDs were modified, as suggested.

 

• “The number of literature items in part is unfit for aim and range of paper (only less than half of 72 were used in the Discussion)”

As mentioned in the introduction, there are few studies in literature that investigates the model's performance, being most of them application study cases. And, we decide to use studies published in the best journals to support discussion. The number of studies relevant to the topic, then, is limited, but we believe this does not reflect a lack of theoretical foundation.

 

“In many places in the Introduction, Results, Discussion and Conclusion similar phrases are repeated. Additionally, the Discussion section included many of the results”

The mention of some results in discussion section is intended to ease the reading and the understanding. The manuscript has been reviewed and revised where necessary..

 

“The captions of all figures and tables are incomplete.”

The captions were revised as suggested.

 

“Supplementary materials in current form have not sense”

In supplementary materials, we intend to present the main data and procedures to model's inputs.

 

“The English needs improvement by a native English speaker”

Previous to first submission, there was a native English speaker review. And   the current version of the manuscript has been reviewed and revised.

 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Change sediment to matter

We chose to use the term “sediment” as suggested by the InVEST’s SDR model manual.

Changing parallels and meridians

The sentence was modified to: “….between the geographical coordinates 21° 37' 0’’ S and 22° 22' 0’’ S and 47° 43' 0’’ W and 48° 56' 0’’ W (Figure 1) ”.

Remove the municipalities

We chose to retain the municipalities in the manuscript, as they use the Jacaré-Guaçu river as a source of water supply.

 

Figure 1. add study area

The title of Figure 1 has been revised as follows:

“Figure 1. Location of Jacaré-Guaçu River Basin with principal watercourses, sites and digital elevation model (DEM), and rainfall, hydrological and water quality monitoring sites”.

From time of study Mr Koppen many changed. Find up-to-date and add new description.

The reference has been updated.

Where did this data come from? Also from Koppen?

Average monthly temperature comes from climatological stations in the study area. These data were used to generate Figure 2. We added a citation to the following sentence and Figure 2.

“The climate of the region is classified as high-altitude tropical, with dry winters and humid summers [40]. Average annual precipitation is approximately 1400 mm, with a rainy season between October and March (Figure 2), which accounts for an average 80% of the total annual precipitation. Average monthly temperatures in the region range from 17.4º C in June to 23.7º C in February [47].”

Remove the decimal value Figure 2.

Revised as suggested.

The significance of the model for soil type was not analyzed - this information is unnecessary

Thanks a lot for the comment. In item 5 (2.1. Study Area), we describe the general characteristics of the watershed. Therefore, we have included information about the soil in this item. Soil data was also used to generate the CN map of the watershed.

Meaningless information

This information complements the previous sentence that reports that agricultural activities are reducing native vegetation in the study area.

 

Table is not necessary as significance levels are given in the text (eg. 366-367). A decision is needed: either a table or values in the text.

Table 1 is used as a reference to evaluate the performance of the InVEST models. Its  values were obtained from Rauf et al. The information in the text (e.g., lines 366-367) is our own results, generated by modeling.

References

Rauf, A., Ghumman, A.R. Impact assessment of rainfall-runoffsimulations on the flow duration curve of the Upper Indus river-a comparison of data-driven and hydrologic models. Water. 2018, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10070876

Figure 3. Remove the % symbol from the values on the Y axis and correct figure description.

Revised as suggested

Table 2. Change to “InVEST WES model performance, considering temporal variability (*inversely proportional relationships, negative slope).”

The name of Table 2 has been revised as suggested.

Figure 4. Remove decimal and hundredths place of values on the Y axis and correct figure description.

Revised as suggested.

Are you sure such high accuracy matters? See in whole manuscript.

In the sentence, we only report our results and indicate their performance based on Rauf et al. The data were in fact discussed in item 4.2. InVEST WES model performance.

References

Rauf, A., Ghumman, A.R. Impact assessment of rainfall-runoffsimulations on the flow duration curve of the Upper Indus river-a comparison of data-driven and hydrologic models. Water. 2018, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10070876

 

Figure 5 e 6 Change the unit notation on the Y axis from t yr-1 to thous. t yr-1 and scale values.

Revised as suggested.

Figure 6. Remove decimal and hundredths place of values on the Y axis

Revised as suggested.

Table 3 presents the spatial performance of WES models considering the variability of specific annual average streamflow and specific annual average loads of sediments and nutrients. SWY model results demonstrated a reasonable fit with the observed data.

The sentence has been revised as suggested.

Repetition! all data are below in tab. 3

 The results are mentioned throughout the text to facilitate the ease of reading and the reader’s understanding.

The long-term mean values of the simulated and observed WES data are compared in Table 4. They indicate that, in general, the models were able to simulate the long-term mean values observed in the sub-basins.

The sentence has been revised  as suggested.

The same situation: all is in tab. 4. Repetition! all data are below in tab. 4

 The results are mentioned throughout the text to facilitate the ease of reading and the reader’s understanding.

Table 4. incomplete description of the table

The title has been revised to the following:“Table 4. Long-term values of simulated and observed data of variables QF, BF, streamflow, ex-ported sediment, TN and TP.”

Results should be rounded off to the decimal 1 place after point.

Revised as suggested.

Add (%) and eliminate all % symbol below

Revised as suggested.

Move to the last column

Revised as suggested.

Lack of explanation. What 'Diffuse' means here.

The terns have been revised to “nonpoint” and “point nutrient loads,” which refer to the  pollution sources.

These are the results!

Some results were mentioned in the discussion section to facilitate the reader's comprehension. The primary intent of the section is to discuss the results. Unlike many studies that just reiterate result data, this manuscript presents a broad discussion of the proposed topics

This is not a discussion (from 622 to 644) but free text.

The discussion presented in these lines is crucial to understanding the methodology's limitations. In these sentences, we discussed uncertainties related to the database, which could affect performance' assessment, the essential purpose of our study.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have sufficiently addressed my comments. 

The manuscript can be recommended for publication. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your helpful suggestions, they were very valuable and helped us to improve the manuscript.

Reviewer 5 Report

The paper has been significantly revised but in the chapter Results insufficiently.

Some of the answers and justifications are unconvincing e.g. way of presentation of results in text. This text still needs improvement.

Totally unnecessary was information that 'The author of this manuscript has published in other periodicals, and the supervisor has 95 journal publications and 1143 citations' and doesn't matter at all. The reviewer has full knowledge of the authors' scholarly achievements, including in worldwide journals. And these kinds of comments was unnecessary and impolite. The fact that a journal is paid cannot mean that it publishes everything regardless of quality.

In regard to answer about 'the hypothesis are lacking'.
I disagree. The hypothesis should be made all the more so since the paper addresses the issue of verifying the usefulness of the model. This is not a review paper.

Author Response

“The paper has been significantly revised but in the chapter Results insufficiently. Some of the answers and justifications are unconvincing e.g. way of presentation of results in text. This text still needs improvement.”

Response

We thank you a lot for the comments. We paid heed to this comment and the presentation of the results was revised and we modified the manuscript to meet the requirements. The paragraphs that were modified are highlighted in the re-submitted file.

“Totally unnecessary was information that 'The author of this manuscript has published in other periodicals, and the supervisor has 95 journal publications and 1143 citations' and doesn't matter at all. The reviewer has full knowledge of the authors' scholarly achievements, including in worldwide journals. And these kinds of comments was unnecessary and impolite. The fact that a journal is paid cannot mean that it publishes everything regardless of quality.”

Response

We believe there was an unfortunate misunderstanding. We did not want to be impolite in any way. Our intention was only to introduce the authors experience, which was questioned in the following comment: “…The presentation of the results and, most of all, the language of the paper, especially in the chapter 'Results' is very much in a style of a student’s presentation during a seminar (i.e. “result of parameter .... was higher than .... which was lower”), and not in a professional, scientific language which may be accepted in scientific journals. This is a very big drawback of the paper which probably reflects the lacking experience of the authors in writing scientific publications”.

“In regard to answer about 'the hypothesis are lacking'. I disagree. The hypothesis should be made all the more so since the paper addresses the issue of verifying the usefulness of the model. This is not a review paper.”

Response

Thanks a lot for the comments. We added a hypothesis in the end of the introduction section.

Round 3

Reviewer 5 Report

-