Using SWAT Model to Assess the Impacts of Land Use and Climate Changes on Flood in the Upper Weihe River, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is true that the authors added information in relation to reviewers' comments but unfortunately they have omitted to add important information in relation to model performance. They need to provide the values for the p and r-factor for both calibration and validation processes and at the same time at the monthly and daily levels.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: It is true that the authors added information in relation to reviewers' comments but unfortunately they have omitted to add important information in relation to model performance.

 Response 1: Many thanks for the important comments. We well noted what the comments mean and have added the model performance information in the revised version of the manuscript in BLUE.

 

Point 2: They need to provide the values for the p and r-factor for both calibration and validation processes and at the same time at the monthly and daily levels.

Response 2: Many thanks for the good and important comments. We have added monthly and daily levels of p-factor and r-factor values based on careful calculations. Please see the revised version while we highlighted our changes in BLUE.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper can be classified as a study using standard methodologies applied in a selected case study. The methods used are known and used in operation practice in many countries worldwide. However, unfortunately, there is no new contribution to science and methodology, and the science question is missing here, too.

The paper presents a relatively comprehensive case study, but it needs many improvements before publication, dealing with data, materials and discussions.

The Author's contribution to the present-day level of knowledge may be in better explanation of several parts of the study, e.g.:

The introduction needs a more detailed analysis of the previous results dealing with the topic of this study, not only adding the citations. Also, the research question of this study needs to be pointed out.

Data used to need a more detailed description concerning catchment characteristics, hydrological meteorological inputs, resolution, time steps, observation stations, etc.

Finally, the novelty of this study should be discussed with previous studies.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

Point 1: The paper can be classified as a study using standard methodologies applied in a selected case study. The methods used are known and used in operation practice in many countries worldwide. However, unfortunately, there is no new contribution to science and methodology, and the science question is missing here, too.

Response 1: Many thanks for the important comments. It is a vital comment especially for a research paper. We have highlighted the scientific and methodological explanations and raised scientific questions. We try to demonstrate a wiser use of existed model to solve a ractical problem in Northernwest China. We have added it in the revised manuscript. Hope it will help the readers to understand the aim of the study.

Point 2: The paper presents a relatively comprehensive case study, but it needs many improvements before publication, dealing with data, materials and discussions.

Response 2: Many thanks for the good comments. We realised it and have added data, materials and discussions to explain the case study.

Point 3: The Author's contribution to the present-day level of knowledge may be in better explanation of several parts of the study, e.g. The introduction needs a more detailed analysis of the previous results dealing with the topic of this study, not only adding the citations. Also, the research question of this study needs to be pointed out.

Response3: Many thanks for the important comments. We fully understand the comments and we try to explain the need of research by comparing with others in the literature in the revised version of the manuscript. The introduction entails a detailed analysis of previous findings dealing with the topic of this study and identifies the research questions of this study.

Point 4: Data used to need a more detailed description concerning catchment characteristics, hydrological meteorological inputs, resolution, time steps, observation stations, etc.

Response 4: Many thanks for the good comments. We have carefully added data with more detailed descriptions of watershed characteristics, hydrometeorological inputs, resolution, time steps, observatories, etc. in the revised version of themanuscript.

Point 5: Finally, the novelty of this study should be discussed with previous studies.

 

Response 5: We highly appreciate the comments. We realised it is a vital issue for a research paper. We have added novelty of the study and discussed it with previous studies.

Response to Reviewer 2

Point 1: The paper can be classified as a study using standard methodologies applied in a selected case study. The methods used are known and used in operation practice in many countries worldwide. However, unfortunately, there is no new contribution to science and methodology, and the science question is missing here, too.

Response 1: Many thanks for the important comments. It is a vital comment especially for a research paper. We have highlighted the scientific and methodological explanations and raised scientific questions. We try to demonstrate a wiser use of existed model to solve a ractical problem in Northernwest China. We have added it in the revised manuscript. Hope it will help the readers to understand the aim of the study.

 

Point 2: The paper presents a relatively comprehensive case study, but it needs many improvements before publication, dealing with data, materials and discussions.

Response 2: Many thanks for the good comments. We realised it and have added data, materials and discussions to explain the case study.

Point 3: The Author's contribution to the present-day level of knowledge may be in better explanation of several parts of the study, e.g. The introduction needs a more detailed analysis of the previous results dealing with the topic of this study, not only adding the citations. Also, the research question of this study needs to be pointed out.

Response3: Many thanks for the important comments. We fully understand the comments and we try to explain the need of research by comparing with others in the literature in the revised version of the manuscript. The introduction entails a detailed analysis of previous findings dealing with the topic of this study and identifies the research questions of this study.

Point 4: Data used to need a more detailed description concerning catchment characteristics, hydrological meteorological inputs, resolution, time steps, observation stations, etc.

Response 4: Many thanks for the good comments. We have carefully added data with more detailed descriptions of watershed characteristics, hydrometeorological inputs, resolution, time steps, observatories, etc. in the revised version of themanuscript.

Point 5: Finally, the novelty of this study should be discussed with previous studies.

Response 5: We highly appreciate the comments. We realised it is a vital issue for a research paper. We have added novelty of the study and discussed it with previous studies.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is interesting and can be published after addressing some concerns.

1. The title of the paper can be polished.
2. The structure of the abstract is not acceptable. Please revise it.
3. Please support the claims in lines 46 to 50 using appropriate references.
4. There are many claims on page 3 that have not been supported using appropriate references.
5. The logic of the introduction is a bit hard to follow. The authors didn’t discuss the floods trend in current years and mention this natural hazard as the most common and destructive natural phenomenon. Please use these references to prepare a paragraph to highlight the floods.

• Yazdani, Maziar, et al. “A modelling framework to design an evacuation support system for healthcare infrastructures in response to major flood events.” Progress in Disaster Science 13 (2022): 100218.
• Uddin, Kabir, and Mir A. Matin. “Potential flood hazard zonation and flood shelter suitability mapping for disaster risk mitigation in Bangladesh using geospatial technology.” Progress in disaster science 11 (2021): 100185.
• Shreevastav, Bitu Babu, et al. “Assessing flood vulnerability on livelihood of the local community: A case from southern Bagmati corridor of Nepal.” Progress in Disaster Science 12 (2021): 100199.
• Hagen, Jenny Sjåstad, et al. “Development and evaluation of flood forecasting models for forecast-based financing using a novel model suitability matrix.” Progress in Disaster Science 6 (2020): 100076.
• Ishiwatari, Mikio, and Daisuke Sasaki. “Investing in flood protection in Asia: An empirical study focusing on the relationship between investment and damage.” Progress in Disaster Science 12 (2021): 100197.

6. The location of figure 1 is not acceptable. It should be in section 2.1 or very close to it.
7. I suggest that the authors first provide a general view of their materials and method and then discuss them in detail.
8. Please improve the presentation of figure 4. It is a bit hard to follow.
9. The discussion and the results are acceptable.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: The title of the paper can be polished.

Response 1: Many thanks for the important comments. We have amended the  title based on careful consideration.

Point 2: The structure of the abstract is not acceptable. Please revise it.

Response 2: Many thanks for the good comments. We have revised the abstract with significant changes.

Point 3: Please support the claims in lines 46 to 50 using appropriate references.

Response3: Many thanks for the important comments. We have added literature to the content section on lines 46 to 50.

Point 4: There are many claims on page 3 that have not been supported using appropriate references.

Response 4: Many thanks for the good comments. We have studied the comment carefully and have added references to the content section on page 3.

Point 5: The logic of the introduction is a bit hard to follow. The authors didn’t discuss the floods trend in current years and mention this natural hazard as the most common and destructive natural phenomenon. Please use these references to prepare a paragraph to highlight the floods.

Response 5: Good point and many thanks. We have added a paragraph to discuss recent trends in research on flooding, and cite these references. Please see the highlighted changes in introduction section of the revised manuscript.

Point 6:The location of figure 1 is not acceptable. It should be in section 2.1 or very close to it.

Response 6: Many thanks for the good comments. We put Figure 1 in Section 2.1, after the text.

Point 7: I suggest that the authors first provide a general view of their materials and method and then discuss them in detail.

Response 7: Many thanks for the good comments. We have added a paragraph to the front of the Discussion section explaining the general view of the paper's materials and methods.

Point 8:Please improve the presentation of figure 4. It is a bit hard to follow.

Response 8: Many thanks for the good comments. We have carefully amended Figure 4 explaination in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have done a good amount of work to justify the response of multi-year LULC and climate change by using a hydrological model that is very useful for water resource managers. This study can be very much utilized for the practical purposes and for the assessment and selection of different models. However, there are some points described below that have to be considered before publication. For instance, though authors have mentioned the literature survey part, it fails to provide clear view on the previous attempts for understanding the hydrological response of LULC changes. Estimating the impact of such changes on a wide range of ecosystem services is seldom attempted. However, there are some points described below that have to be considered before publication. The overall presentation in the Introduction section lacks synergy and exists in bits and pieces. Though authors have identified the research gaps the literature survey part can be more streamlined and while coming towards the problem statement. The introduction section need some rework and restructuring to make a precise outline of study that can be achieve by making discussion in following sequence,

 

1. Need - challenges - methods of using only SWAT and LULC with different satellite products and hydrological models

2. Identified research gaps or problem statement

3. Proposed solution to address the problem statement or to fill the research gaps

4. Objectives in line of identified research gaps or problem statement

 

Currently, many of the statements are not supported by published works. Authors may like to find studies in line with their statements to add scientific weight to their observations. I believe that after duly addressing the comments authors can improve the quality of the manuscript substantially to make it more insightful.

 

Line 63-71: In this paragraph it is seen that authors have not adequately focused on the literature review for different hydrological models. As it can be seen there are 2-3 studies mention only. There are other models which have been applied successfully for e.g., VIC model, it is a globally applied hydrological model that accounts for sub-grid variability. I would strongly recommend the authors to add some recent studies that have applied the VIC model in various river basins. Further, authors are suggested to mention about conceptual hydrological models too. There have been various studies which have studied the land use land cover change, irrigation scheduling, climate feedback mechanisms and water balance estimations (https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0001199). Just one or two reference gives the impression that the extensive literature review is not being conducted and it is needed to address the problem. The findings or conclusions in terms of their modelling approaches are not mentioned. Elaborate more on how this paper differs or affirms the findings and conclusion of those studies. These points need to be clearly addressed in the introduction section. Hence, I would strongly recommend adding the recent and important reference to add more scientific weight in their Introduction in the lines mentioned above.

 

Authors are required to mention the limitations or assumptions considered in this study at the end of Introduction.

 

My major concern of the study: the authors should elaborate more on the selection of the models selected in the study. The selection of all models over other existing models should be expounded. There needs to be a detailed comparison of various simulation models. The similarities, differences, shortfalls of other simulation models. There is a lot of research out there on these topics. The authors must review the recent literature to provide a clearer context for this work. For this, I would like to suggest authors consider adding some of these recent literature that will be useful for the following manuscript in attributing/interpreting some of your statements in the introduction section (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-021-09919-0; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2020.100730).

A research flow chart that can show the entire research flow is required.

Please provide a time series of precipitation or keep in hydrograph plots in the secondary axis.

Authors have not provided the details of the selected catchments in the study. I would recommend adding the details of each and every catchments which would allow readers to follow clearly. Which type of calibration method is utilised here not mentioned.

Though the authors have shown the hydrograph I strongly recommend authors include flow duration curves (as shown in the previous studies mentioned above and others) for discharge to make the results section more comprehensible. The authors can compare findings of the results obtained in the previous studies. They can add the description from this study. Also author can use the exceedance probability distribution to showcase the frequency distribution.

 

 Authors have not described how they have charecterised the different season flows, which is not clear from the results sections of this paper. Performance of hydrological models for different water levels for different lead times can be assessed using a “partitioning analysis” which is carried out by dividing the total discharge values into low, medium, and high magnitude water levels. Those statistical indices are not being discussed therefore I would suggest author to incorporate it. Particulary it would be better to show the table depicting the number of data points in low-, medium-, and high-water level categories.

 

I would recommend adding spatial plots for the catchments selected herein to show the spatial variability in simulated streamflow.

It should be stated that application of the state-of-the-art DSS test is practically possible in these catchment, unless data availability is not restricted.

 

Provide the water balance components analysis atleast for few years as it is the main hydrological aspect because only streamflow sometimes can be tricky. Also I would ask authors how they address the uncertainty in the different model simulations. Please elaborate it in details as these models have high source of uncertainties based on the structure, parameters, and several other independent and dependent variables. Authors can take help from the study conducted by Srivastava et al., 2017 where they have detailed water balance components.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done a good amount of work to justify the response of multi-year LULC and climate change by using a hydrological model that is very useful for water resource managers. This study can be very much utilized for the practical purposes and for the assessment and selection of different models. However, there are some points described below that have to be considered before publication. For instance, though authors have mentioned the literature survey part, it fails to provide clear view on the previous attempts for understanding the hydrological response of LULC changes. Estimating the impact of such changes on a wide range of ecosystem services is seldom attempted. However, there are some points described below that have to be considered before publication. The overall presentation in the Introduction section lacks synergy and exists in bits and pieces. Though authors have identified the research gaps the literature survey part can be more streamlined and while coming towards the problem statement. The introduction section need some rework and restructuring to make a precise outline of study that can be achieve by making discussion in following sequence,

1. Need - challenges - methods of using only SWAT and LULC with different satellite products and hydrological models
2. Identified research gaps or problem statement
3. Proposed solution to address the problem statement or to fill the research gaps
4. Objectives in line of identified research gaps or problem statement

Currently, many of the statements are not supported by published works. Authors may like to find studies in line with their statements to add scientific weight to their observations. I believe that after duly addressing the comments authors can improve the quality of the manuscript substantially to make it more insightful.

 

Response: Thank you so much for such the important and valuable comments. As a scientific paper, these points are so important and are the key issues for a good paper. We have studied these and realized theses and have re-thought about our paper due the revision. We have made changes accordingly to make sure to address these points in our revised version of the manuscript.

 

（1）Line 63-71: In this paragraph it is seen that authors have not adequately focused on the literature review for different hydrological models. As it can be seen there are 2-3 studies mention only. There are other models which have been applied successfully for e.g., VIC model, it is a globally applied hydrological model that accounts for sub-grid variability. I would strongly recommend the authors to add some recent studies that have applied the VIC model in various river basins. Further, authors are suggested to mention about conceptual hydrological models too. There have been various studies which have studied the land use land cover change,irrigation scheduling, climate feedback mechanisms and water balance estimations (https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0001199). Just one or two reference gives the impression that the extensive literature review is not being conducted and it is needed to address the problem. The findings or conclusions in terms of their modelling approaches are not mentioned. Elaborate more on how this paper differs or affirms the findings and conclusion of those studies. These points need to be clearly addressed in the introduction section. Hence, I would strongly recommend adding the recent and important reference to add more scientific weight in their Introduction in the lines mentioned above.

Response: Yes, many thanks for the valuable comments. We have read the literature carefully, added some recent research in Introduction section, and have added in the introduction about the problem to be solved, the method of modeling, and some of the problems found. The differences between this paper and the existing research are explained in detail. We have added recent important references. The English polish has been highlighted in green.

 

（2）Authors are required to mention the limitations or assumptions considered in this study at the end of Introduction.

Response: Yes, many thanks for the suggestion. We have added content of limitations or assumptions considered in this study at the end of the introduction. The English polish has been highlighted in green.

 

（3）My major concern of the study: the authors should elaborate more on the selection of the models selected in the study. The selection of all models over other existing models should be expounded. There needs to be a detailed comparison of various simulation models. The similarities, differences, shortfalls of other simulation models. There is a lot of research out there on these topics. The authors must review the recent literature to provide a clearer context for this work. For this, I would like to suggest authors consider adding some of these recent literature that will be useful for the following manuscript in attributing/interpreting some of your statements in the introduction section (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-021-09919-0;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2020.100730).

Response: Many thanks once again for the fine reading and suggestions. We have carefully read the literature recommended as well as related literature, and have carefully studied and thought about the questions you raised. We have also added some content about the reasons and background of the choice of the SWAT model. We have added analysis and comparison of various models in the Introduction section, The English polish has been highlighted in green.  

 

（4）A research flow chart that can show the entire research flow is required.

Response: Good suggestion, many thanks. A research flow chart showing the entire research flow has been added, see Figure 4. The English polish has been highlighted in green.

 

（5）Please provide a time series of precipitation or keep in hydrograph plots in the secondary axis.

Response: Yes, many thanks. The relevant content of the time series of precipitation has been shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6.

 

（6）Authors have not provided the details of the selected catchments in the study. I would recommend adding the details of each and every catchments which would allow readers to follow clearly.

Response: Many thanks for the comments. Details of watersheds selected in the study and catchment area details have been added. The English polish has been highlighted in green.

 

（7）Which type of calibration method is utilised here not mentioned.

Response: Many thanks for the comment. The article uses the automatic calibration method of SWAT-CUP, which has been added.

 

（8）Though the authors have shown the hydrograph I strongly recommend authors include flow duration curves (as shown in the previous studies mentioned above and others) for discharge to make the results section more comprehensible. The authors can compare findings of the results obtained in the previous studies. They can add the description from this study. Also author can use the exceedance probability distribution to showcase the frequency distribution.

Response: Good comments, many thanks. Due to lack of data, the flow duration curves were not added, but we added the number of days at different water levels for the accuracy of the 400m³/s flood simulation. We also referenced the findings of others and added some content to the Discussion section. The English polish has been highlighted in green.

 

（9）Authors have not described how they have charecterised the different season flows, which is not clear from the results sections of this paper. Performance of hydrological models for different water levels for different lead times can be assessed using a “partitioning analysis” which is carried out by dividing the total discharge values into low, medium, and high magnitude water levels. Those statistical indices are not being discussed therefore I would suggest author to incorporate it. Particulary it would be better to show the table depicting the number of data points in low-, medium-, and high-water level categories.

Response: We are grateful for the good comments. In section 3.2, a table showing the number of data points describing the low, medium and high water level categories has been added with the number of measured and simulated values for different water levels, and the simulated accuracy graph and related explanations. The English polish has been highlighted in green.

（10）I would recommend adding spatial plots for the catchments selected herein to show the spatial variability in simulated streamflow.

Response: Good suggestion, many thanks. We have carefully studied your suggestion. Since the object of this study on the Weihe River is the upper reaches of the river, the data used in this paper were the observation data of the Linjiacun hydrological station, which is the main outlet of the upper reaches of the Weihe River, so it can represent the runoff of the upper reaches of the Weihe River. Therefore it is difficult to realize the addition of the spatial map you mentioned. But we do have the plan on ensuing study attempts to study the the whole watershed. Because the whole watershed involves many hydrological stations, the spatial variability of the simulated flow must be displayed by adding a spatial map.

 

 （11）Provide the water balance components analysis atleast for few years as it is the main hydrological aspect because only streamflow sometimes can be tricky. Also we would ask authors how they address the uncertainty in the different model simulations. Please elaborate it in details as these models have high source of uncertainties based on the structure, parameters, and several other independent and dependent variables. Authors can take help from the study conducted by Srivastava et al., 2017 where they have detailed water balance components.

Response: Good point, many thanks. We have carefully studied your suggestion. We have also carefully analyzed the water balance component analysis for at least a few years, and tried to add this content. However, since the data on the water diversion and discharge along the river gate are difficult to obtain, there is no way to increase the content of this part, while it is the plan to strengthen the research on this part in the ensuing study. The uncertainty analysis of the parameters of this paper is based on the SUFI-2 method. The SUFI-2 (Sequential Uncertainty Fitting) method uses the Latin hypercube random sampling method to obtain the model parameter values within the preset parameter range. The value of the objective function is calculated by the selected objective function, and the quantiles of the 2.5% and 97.5% of the cumulative distribution of the predictors (95% prediction uncertainty, or 95PPU for short) are also calculated. The p-factor is the percentage of the measured value included in the 95% interval of the prediction uncertainty, and the r-factor is the ratio of the average distance between the upper and lower limits of the 95PPU to the standard deviation of the measured value. The uncertainty is quantified by the p-factor and the r-factor. The English polish has been highlighted in green.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please revise comment 5.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: The logic of the introduction is a bit hard to follow. The authors didn’t discuss the floods trend in current years and mention this natural hazard as the most common and destructive natural phenomenon. Please use these references to prepare a paragraph to highlight the floods.

Response 1: Good point and many thanks. We have added a part of the content, mainly modified from comment on trends in flood development and the scientific value of the literature listed in the text, see lines35-40,122-124 and 135-137. Please see the highlighted changes in introduction section of the revised manuscript. The English polish has been highlighted in yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors haven't incorporated technical suggestions but addressed about writing discussion and a few lines about hydrological modeling. Some of my comments are addressed adequately but just superficially touched and not discussed in detail. The authors haven't improved any aspect in terms of implementing recent and detailed literature on these topics. With the current content, the manuscript cannot be accepted for publication as it doesn't fetch or suggest any generalized recommendation to the scientific community or to the region. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: The authors haven't incorporated technical suggestions but addressed about writing discussion and a few lines about hydrological modeling. Some of my comments are addressed adequately but just superficially touched and not discussed in detail. The authors haven't improved any aspect in terms of implementing recent and detailed literature on these topics. With the current content, the manuscript cannot be accepted for publication as it doesn't fetch or suggest any generalized recommendation to the scientific community or to the region. 

Response 1: Good point and many thanks. We had carefully studied the valuable comments and searched and read the latest literature. As has been pointed out in the introduction section of the paper, there are large numbers of models used in the similar studies as this study. The models used in the literature have improved the prediction accuracy, but the research on their mechanism is still lacking, especially the research on the response mechanism of the hydrological cycle under climate change has become a major problem. This forms the basis of the current study and we try to highlight the feature of this study via the “case study” of Weihe River, i.e. through parameter analysis and calibration, small watershed units were divided, while the model to improve watershed flood simulation and prediction was established. Through basin hydrological simulation and future runoff prediction, the impact mechanism were then discussed which is associated with natural climate variability, anthropogenic climate change and human activities on the underlying surface on hydrology..

The research results can provide scientific reference for the simulation and prediction of future floods. We concluded that the uneven temporal and spatial distribution of precipitation, specific topographic conditions as well as water system characteristics, are the inducing mechanisms of frequent flood disasters in the upper Weihe River. Heavy rain and the resulting disaster chain aggravated the intensity of flood disasters in the upper Weihe River, while the disturbance of human activities and weak disaster resistance amplify the flood disasters. The changes and input have been highlighted in red.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study, " Application of SWAT Model to Explore the Impact of Land Use and Climate Changes on Flooding in the Upper Weihe River, China", concentrates on

 analyzing the impact of land use and climate change in the upper reaches of the Weihe River basin on runoff changes in the basin using the SWAT model.

The paper can be classified as a study using standard methodologies applied in a selected case study. The methods used are known and used in operation practice in many countries worldwide. However, unfortunately, there is no new contribution to science and methodology, and the science question is missing here, too.

The paper presents a relatively comprehensive case study, but it needs many improvements before publication, dealing with data, materials and discussions.

The Author's contribution to the present-day level of knowledge may be in better explanation of several parts of the study, e.g.:

The introduction needs a more detailed analysis of the previous results dealing with the topic of this study, not only adding the citations. Also, the research question of this study needs to be pointed out.

Data used to need a more detailed description concerning catchment characteristics, hydrological meteorological inputs, resolution, time steps, observation stations, etc.

 

The main concern is the climatic scenario, Table 6., which seem too scholar. Nowadays, many climate scenarios from RCM in daily and hourly time steps are available, which should be used in such an analysis. 

Also, some presented results as Fig. 8 (is twice in the study)

Finally, the novelty of this study should be discussed with previous studies.

 

Unfortunately, the paper's topic also focuses too much on case study results. On the other hand, the paper can be considered worth publishing in a regional engineering journal.

The paper needs improvement of the present form, and I recommend publishing after its resubmitting.

Reviewer 2 Report

The major problem is on the Novelty/contribution of the study ..i couldn’t find any research element in the work

mostly focus on the runoff changes on the overall scale 113 of the basin, and there is few research on the regional part of the basin.- Not a research gap

some minor comments

 correlation index R2—to use common terms

SHE model, TOPMPDEL model, Xin'anjiang model, SWAT model, VIC 64 model, HBV model,- Expand such terms

Li Chaoyue et al. applied-put reference No at all places

Objectives should be specified as (i).. (ii) .. (iii)

Figure 3 .. Axis should be in same range in calibration plot 

Reviewer 3 Report

I went carefully through the paper entitled " Application of SWAT Model to Explore the Impact of Land Use and Climate Changes on Flooding in the Upper Weihe River, China", and I believe it presents interest for the reader and the scientific community. Nevertheless, I have made a few comments as follows.

Major shortcoming

In the introduction section, the author needs to emphasise the gap in the scientific field what has been done and what has not been done so far and what complements this research. Nevertheless, the authors need to complete the introduction with both the aim and objective of the research.

Another major shortcoming is the assessment of the uncertainty of the model (p-factor and r-factor), especially in the context of the SUFI2 algorithm used. This aspect is missing from the present research but is very important in order to highlight the performance of the model.

Minor shortcoming

For the statement made at lines 39 to 45, the authors need recent references (e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927821001131; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935120302231; https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/12/7/860.

At lines number 63 to 64 the statement highlight "commonly used hydrological models in China and other countries" but for other countries commonly used are "distributed Hydrology Soil Vegetation Model (DHSVM), Hydrologic Engineering Center ’s Hydrologic Modelling System (HEC-HMS), Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC), Euro-pean Hydrological System Model (MIKE SHE)" (https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/12/7/860). More input is required for the hydrological model in the introduction section.

For the statement made at lines number 82-83, the authors can add recent research that proved the efficiency of SWAT model in the small watershed (e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/12/7/860; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935120302231)

At lines, number 104 to 105 the phrase emphasises the most important idea on which both the scientific and the practical part must be focused namely "integrated management of resources" but need recent references for this statement (e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927821001131; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969719335880).

In the paragraph between 113 to 117 lines the statement highlights "few research on the regional part of the basin" but this affirmation need support because in the last time research focused on small watersheds' behaviour in the context of climate change (e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935120302231; https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/12/7/860).

Generally in the scientific papers, when making the affirmation "the main rivers include […]" you need to avoid the abbreviation “etc”. Similarly to the statement made for soil types. In this context, we need to say the main soil types in the area are.....

The "Construction of basic database" subsection need information about the resolution of DEM, land and soil. Besides, the description of land use and climate scenarios is more suitable for this subsection.

In the "Division of sub-basin" section the authors refer "the upper Weihe River Basin was divided into 43 sub-basins, as shown in Figure 3" but Figure 3 doesn't appear beside way only 43 sub-basins and 315 HRUs was generated need more explication. Another explication requires the thresholds chosen way 10% and 15% and not 5% require more explication (which was the reason for this chosen?).

The name of subsection 2.2.4 is unclear. For better understanding can say "Evaluation of model performance". At the same time if you used the sequential uncertainty fitting algorithm beside R2, NSE and PBIAS you need to highlight the p-factor and r-factor in order to emphasise the performance of the model (meaning uncertainty of model).

The paragraph between lines number 247 to 260 needs references in order to sustain the thresholds have mentioned for statistical parameters (https://elibrary.asabe.org/abstract.asp?aid=23153; https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/12/7/860)

The paragraph between lines number 305 to 306 states that "the simulation results of annual, monthly, and daily runoff were relatively satisfactory". If the calibration has been made daily, monthly and annually it needs to be presented.  Moreover, for the monthly and annually calibration, the warm-up period needs to include more years (2-3) in order to provide a good model ("model developers recommend using warm-up periods of two to three years for hydrological processes" https://agrilife.org/vernon/files/2012/11/36_Daggupati_et_al_2015_TransASABE.pdf).

The statement has been made in paragraphs 325-326 "Combined with Table 1, the daily runoff simulation of Linjiacun is better than the monthly runoff simulation" is confusing and without consistency. Table 1 does not show the above statement.

In subsection 3. What was the reason to use hypothetical climate scenarios and did not use existing global and regional climate models.

In the discussion section the author highlight "In future studies, we can consider using distributed VIC, DHSVM, and other hydrological models [...]" but is without consistent because until the discussion section the authors did not refer to the model VIC, DHSVM. They need to reconsider this statement.

Reviewer 4 Report

Based on my assessment, the manuscript requires Major Revision and cannot be recommended for publication in its current form in “Water”. I believe that after duly addressing the comments authors can improve the quality of the manuscript substantially to make it more insightful. The comments are attached below.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf