Dynamic Analysis in Surface Water Area and Its Driving Factors in Northeast China from 1988 to 2020
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I enjoyed reading your paper. The paper discusses the dynamic analysis and driving factors of surface water resources in NOrthern China between 1988 and 2020. The results show that (1) the seasonal surface water area (SSWA) and permanent surface water area (PSWA) in Northeast China increased at the rates of 58.408km2 /yr and 169.897km2 /yr, respectively, from 1988 to 2020. Taking 2000 as the node, PSWA and SSWA showed a trend of first decreasing and then increasing. (2) The changes in surface water types in each basin have significant space-time differences, and the transition between water bodies is dominated by the addition and reduction of seasonal water bodies. PSWA decreased significantly in western basins such as the Ulagai River Basin (URB), the Otindag desert (OD), and the Liao River Basin (LRB), but increased significantly in the Songhua River Basin (SRB). (3) The driving forces of surface water change in different basins are different.
I would suggest including the following aspects to the paper, while revising it:
- reflect more on the concept of "dynamic". How do you conceptualise it? Can you flash it out a bit more? Read for instance the work of Mattia Grandi, where he writes on the case of the Blue Nile in relation to "dynamic political contexts"
- in terms of transformation and changes, include the work of Andreas Burkert on rural to urban transofrmation, and their impacts on the land use changes. Check in particular his work with Peter Riad on Egyptian and Jordanian cities.
- Better explain the guiding research question, the relevant literature, the gap, and the research design.
I really enjoyed the maps, well done.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has merit and is generally well presented but can be improved in some respects to make a stronger argument and clearer presentation.
Early in the paper it is not clear what types of water bodies are found in the study area. Figure 4 should be presented earlier to give context, along with its explanatory text, and some statistics given on how dominant large lakes or rivers are to the total surface water area in each basin. This matters because some peaks could be floods and this needs to be considered in the discussion - influence of individual events versus trends.
Are the trends in Figure 2 statistically significant and how was the breakpoint determined between the declining and rising lines? It seems rather arbitrary and therefore over analysis of what is just variation year to year.
There are far too many unfamiliar acronyms in the paper. Avoid all place name acronyms and others if possible.
The reader needs a map identifying the Basins of the region.
P 14. How can somewhere be "dry and rainy all year around"?
In places the discussion is speculative and should be acknowledged as such and speculations kept to a minimum because no independent evidence is given. For example on P 14 a causal link is argued between overgrazing, soil function and surface water area. No data is presented to show trends in overgrazing or soil function. Even if it they were correlated this could be coincidental and be caused by other factors such as climate change. The same applies to other parts of the discussion and conclusions.
There are minor typographical errors such as in the second last line of P 2.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Abstract, Line 10, should be ‘Changes in surface water’
The line 4 from the bottom, ‘reasons’ should be ‘causes’
Figure 2, why the curves have difference color before and after 2000. It should be explained in the caption.
Figure 3, The figure is too difficult to read and understand. I think that it is unnecessary to divide the study area into so many sub-regions. Try to make it clear.
Figure 5, I can not understand what the author want to address. The caption is unclear. 1984-1999? 1984-2020?
Figure 6. I think too much sub-regions are divided. Try to make it clear.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dynamic Analysis and Driving Factors of Surface Water Area in Northeast China from 1988 to 2020
This is an interesting manuscript submitted to Water.
First, I ran the manuscript in Turnitin and found slightly higher plagiarism scores (23%). Please reduce that under 20% and I hope it is a requirement by the journal it self.
Title is somewhat misleading due to "and" term. Please come up with a way to combine your two phrases. "Dynamic Analysis and Driving Factors"
Abstract - "The spatial and temporal changes" - The spatio-temporal changes?
What is the requirement for this research? It is not clearly stated in the abstract? I mean the research gap.
You need at least a sentence to educate the reader on the methodology in the abstract.
I believe, the idea of abstract is not met here. Therefore, please revise the abstract.
Introduction - Can you specify the research gap and what is your way of achieving the research gap in the last paragraph of the Introduction?
Study area - "altitude of the whole area is below 2700 m" Better to give a range.
Methods - Linear regression analysis? What is reason? What are the independent and dependent variables? Suddenly this comes under the methods?
Results - Comparatively good. What is the physical meaning of Figure 10.
I personally like to have one section for Results and Discussion which gives a better approach to authors to present their work as well the reader to have a smooth move.
Conclusions - It is quite interesting to see the increase of water surface area. Can you verify it with ground data? and also the reasons?
Follow the correct formatting when submitting a manuscript. This is not numbered. So very difficult to comment on. Also, please see the Author Contributions. You have to use the initials not full names here. Therefore, please read the manuscript template given in Water.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Wei Shan; Data curation, Wei Shan, Lisha Qiu, Chengcheng Zhang and Min Ma; Formal analysis, Lisha Qiu; Funding acquisition, Wei Shan; Methodology, Lisha Qiu and Chengcheng Zhang; Project administration, Wei Shan and Ying Guo; Resources, Wei Shan; Software, Lisha Qiu; Writing – original draft, Wei Shan and Lisha Qiu; Writing – review & editing, Wei Shan, Lisha Qiu, Ying Guo, Chengcheng Zhang and Min Ma.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
fine now
Reviewer 4 Report
Revisions are acknowledged.
