Spatio-Temporal Model of a Product–Sum Simulation on Stream Network Based on Hydrologic Distance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line # 61 to 63 need citation.
For the statement, "..... statistically, the Euclidean distance-based auto-covariance function is not valid, if it is a negative-definite (line #69 - 70). Could this statement be cited?
Redundancy should be avoided. For e.g., the statement, "The aim of this research is to develop a Spatio-temporal model of the generalized product-sum based on the Hydrologic distance and verify the validity of the proposed model through a simulation study and exploration of the relationships between Hydrologic distance, the Euclidean distance, and spatial configuration." Line #96-99 is repeated at least a couple of times in the Introduction section.
Should include the Contributions made in this research towards the end of the Introduction section and this section should end with the organization of the manuscript.
The manuscript needs complete editing for language and grammar.
The manuscript need to be edited for English language and grammar.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Regards,
Rahmat Budiarto
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the authors aims to develop a spatio-temporal model of the generalized product-sum based on the Hydrologic distance with a positive-definite property. The paper solves the problem of inaccurate autocovariance function in river pollution research and proposes a solution using hydrologic distance as the autocovariance function, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of the model. And the paper explores the relationship between hydrologic distance, Euclidean distance, and spatial configuration, which contributes to a better understanding of spatiotemporal model establishment, which is in general a very challenging objective.
In general, the paper is well written and easy to follow. The data and methods are exposed in a precise manner, and the presentation of the results is also in general quite clear. For those reasons, the results presented in this paper are of interest for the hydrologic community and have therefore the potential for being published in Water.
However, I think the paper can be improved before publication. I have a number of minor and in general rather technical comments, plus one comment that I would qualify as “major”. Those comments would require significant modifications to the manuscript. I hope they will be taken in a constructive way by the authors and will help them to improve their paper.
Major comments:
(1) The paper does not describe in detail the application effect of the model on actual datasets, which limits the understanding of the actual effect and applicability of the model. At the very least, it needs to be compared with other studies.
(2) The experimental validation only considers some semivariogram models, and the effectiveness of the model for other semivariogram models needs further exploration.
(3) The paper does not provide a detailed discussion and analysis of the differences between hydrologic distance and Euclidean distance and their impact on the model, which limits the comprehensiveness of the research.
(4) The paper does not compare and evaluate the proposed model with other existing models, making it difficult to evaluate the superiority and innovation of the model.
Minor comments:
(1) The quality of the drawing is not high and needs to be modified. For example, Figure Fig.3 and Fig.4.
(2) The conclusion needs to be reorganized. It is incomplete and it is too short.
The language needs to be modified.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Regards,
Rahmat Budiarto
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
After reviewing the paper and the answers to the questions, I think the paper is acceptable.
