Characteristics of Evapotranspiration and Water Consumption of Different Underlying Surfaces in Qaidam Basin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments are attached in the file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Using EC observation from systems installed on four underlying surfaces in the Qaidam Basin, the manuscript analyzed the ET characteristics of each underlying surface at different time scales, explored the influence of different meteorological factors on the ET of each underlying surface, and analyzed the water consumption characteristics of different underlying surfaces. Although the text is well written, the manuscript significantly suffers from a lack of novelty. In the present form, it seems like a case study report that only applied some available knowledge on a set of local data. The authors must clearly discuss the originality of their work. In addition, the research question of this study is not clear. Is your study only implementation of current knowledge to calculate the actual ET for four observation stations in the Qaidam Basin?

 The other important issue is the use of only a linear correlation metric. Why only linear correlation? nonlinear relation might be dominant. Discuss and apply at least a nonlinear correlation statistic. Also check if the time lag among ET and associated indicators is available or not. Discuss. Please also find my minor comments in the attached PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

 Accept in present form

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for accepting our study. Your recognition has given us great motivation for our future research.

 

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors have improved the manuscript based on the comments. However, their response to point 7 is not convincing. It is very important to highlight that this study was limited to the use of only a linear correlation among meteorological factors affecting evapotranspiration. At least, the point can be mentioned at the end of the conclusion section.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable coments. We have added these at the end of conclusion section of the manuscript as :” In addition, only linear correlation was used in the analysis of the correlation between ET and meteorological factors in this study, and nonlinear correlation should be considered in future studies.“

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

The manuscript with the title of "Evapotranspiration Variation and Its Correlation with Environmental Factors on Different Underlying Surfaces in Qaidam Basin" makes sense with respect to environmental management. However, I could not recommend it for publication in the water journal at its current stage. I would like to raise three issues to discuss with the authors, which I believe must be addressed before considering the acceptance of a manuscript.

First, the introduction does not provide an adequate background, because it needs to start with a broad overview of the topic and gradually down to the study area. Furthermore, the introduction needs to highlight the gap in the field and what brings in addition to the present research.

Second, the authors have said in the main objective of research that "[...] to explore the evaporation and the correlation of different environmental factors". Nevertheless, in the methodology section, they didn't talk about environmental factors that have been taken into analysis. Besides, the authors have created confusion because once one talks about environmental factors another time talk about meteorological factors.

Third, the framework has not been substantiated with novel methods. The EC method is nothing new and has been used in a series of other research papers obviously the correlation analysis across meteorological factors and evapotranspiration too. Then, the novelty of this submission becomes so pale that it probably could not fulfil the curiosity of the water journal readers.

 

With the 3 issues above, I would have to suggest the authors consider a reconceptualization of their work and new submission.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments are provided in the file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf