A Study on the Determination and Spatial Flow of Multi-Scale Watershed Water Resource Supply and Benefit Areas
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents a study on the determination and spatial flow of multi-scale watershed water resource supply benefit area. The study has been systematically conducted and analyzed. The authors must address the following aspects for clarity and improvement.
Novelty should be highlighted in abstract and introduction Literature background needs to be further strengthened. Other studies done to address similar objectives should be discussed and superiority of this work should be emphasized. Rationale for selection of dataset in a particular time period should be provided. Strengths and limitations of SWAT model should be mentioned more clearly Which statistical methods were used? A sub-section could be included to mention those along with suitable references. Statistical analysis results should be discussed clearly. Section 3.4 needs improvement. How were figures 14 and 15 obtained and what are their interpretations, needs to be elaborated Discussion part lacks enough citations to references to other published literature. This aspect needs to be improved. Language should be checked. Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing may be needed.
Author Response
Comments 1: [Novelty should be highlighted in abstract and introduction Literature background needs to be further strengthened. Other studies done to address similar objectives should be discussed and superiority of this work should be emphasized. Rationale for selection of dataset in a particular time period should be provided. Strengths and limitations of SWAT model should be mentioned more clearly Which statistical methods were used? A sub-section could be included to mention those along with suitable references. Statistical analysis results should be discussed clearly. Section 3.4 needs improvement. How were figures 14 and 15 obtained and what are their interpretations, needs to be elaborated Discussion part lacks enough citations to references to other published literature. This aspect needs to be improved. Language should be checked. ]
Response 1:
Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. We have rewritten the abstract and introduction as requested to highlight the novelty of the paper while strengthening the literary level. By comparing with other related researches, the superiority of this work is highlighted.This change can be found in the revised manuscript– page 1, abstract, and line11-19.Changes to the introduction are found on page 2, paragraph 2, lines 65-72 of the revised manuscript.
The selection of specific time period data for the SWAT model is explained in the revised manuscript, the advantages and limitations of the SWAT model are added, and the statistical analysis results are also explained in the revised manuscript. The specific changes are on page 5, lines 193-212 of the revised manuscript. Page 6, lines 229-245. Page 6, lines 253-254 is a description of the results of the analysis.
The content of section 3.4 has been rewritten to illustrate and explain the method of obtaining Figures 14 and 15. Changes to this part are made on page 16, paragraph 2, lines 435-451, page 17, lines 452-459 ,and page 18, line 464-477of the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study implemented the SWAT model to investigate the supply and demand of water resource in the upper reaches of Hanjiang River basin in Shaanxi province. With the consideration of the spatial and temporal distribution and variation, the supply and benefit areas were delimited. Flow path and spatial distribution chart of water supply service flow were established based on the self-sufficient rate (ratio?). This allows the administration offices modify their water-supply plans. This study is very novice and practical. English writing is generally good. To improve the quality of this paper, there are several comments as follows:
1. S_ij in Eq. 2 is a ratio, not a rate. So self-sufficiency “rate” should be self-sufficiency “ratio”.
2. All acronyms must be defined at first appearance in the abstract and manuscript: HRU on line 83, LUCC on line 119, etc.
3. Some authors’ names in the Introduction are not consistent with those in the Reference List.
4. In-text citation: Citing a source with two authors, the surname of both of the authors should be listed. With more than 2 authors, use “et al.” after the first listed author.
5. Reference list: Style must be correct and be consistent. Don’t use et al in the reference list.
6. Abstract, Line 14: “Water and Soil Assessment Tool” should be “Soil and Water Assessment Tool”.
7. Figs. 1 & 5: Discussion of these figures are missing. All figures must be discussed in the main text.
8. In Figs. 7, 9, 11 and 12, the color legends in each subfigure are not of the same scale. The reviewer suggests using one scale for all subfigures for the convenience of cross-comparison among the subfigures.
9. Line 131: “…a DEM (Figure 3).” The parenthesis should be halfwidth, not fullwidth.
10. Line 151: “error difference.” Is it error or difference?
11. Line 154: “…by manual tuning…” or “…by manually tuning…”
12. Lines 158-159: “Related studies … has achieved significant results.” What does that mean? “significant results” or “statistically significant results”?
13. Lines 193-194: All the words “I” and “J” should be replaced with “i” and ‘j”, respectively.
14. Line 252: “changes of water demand”. What change? Please define.
15. Line 284: “supply and demand”. What does this mean? Is it supply, demand, or supply + demand, supply-demand, or something else. Can it be defined mathematically for the sake of clarity?
16. Figure 12: In the color legend of the rate of change, it was noted by unit “m^3/10a”. What is “10a”? Also, what is this “rate of change”? Can it be defined mathematically for the sake of clarity?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSee above comments.
Author Response
Comments 1: [S_ij in Eq. 2 is a ratio, not a rate. So self-sufficiency “rate” should be self-sufficiency “ratio”.]
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have change the Rate to Ratio. This change can be found in the revised manuscript-page 8, 2.6 Section Title, and Line 282.
It has been updated in the manuscript.
Comments 2: [All acronyms must be defined at first appearance in the abstract and manuscript: HRU on line 83, LUCC on line 119, etc.]
Response 2: Agree. We have defined the “HRU” and “LUCC” to emphasize this point. HRU(Hydrologic Research Unit). LUCC(Land Use and Climate Change).The change of “HRU” in the revised manuscript can be found-page 3, paragraph 2, and line 142. The change of “LUCC” in the revised manuscript can be found-page 1, paragraph 1, and line 17.
It has been updated in the manuscript.
Comments 3: [ Some authors’ names in the Introduction are not consistent with those in the Reference List.]
Response 3: Agree. We have modified the authors’ names in the Introduction that are not consistent with those in the Reference List. This discrepancy is due to the order of the names of the Chinese authors.
This change can be found in the revised manuscript-page 2, paragraph 1-2, and line 55\59\70.
It has been updated in the manuscript.
Comments 4: [In-text citation: Citing a source with two authors, the surname of both of the authors should be listed. With more than 2 authors, use “et al.” after the first listed author.]
Response 4: Agree. We have revised the problem. “et al.” has been added to literature citations by more than three authors.
This change can be found in the revised manuscript-page 2, paragraph 2, and line 70.
It has been updated in the manuscript.
Comments 5: [Reference list: Style must be correct and be consistent. Don’t use et al in the reference list.]
Response 5: Agree. We have revised all the reference formats in question.We are very sorry that due to the negligence of the author. We did not see the format requirements of the reference. In the revised draft, all et al. has been removed and replaced with the correct author.
It has been updated in the manuscript.
Comments 6: [ Abstract, Line 14: “Water and Soil Assessment Tool” should be “Soil and Water Assessment Tool”.]
Response 6: Agree. We have modified “Water and Soil Assessment Tool” to “Soil and Water Assessment Tool”. This change can be found in the revised manuscript-page 1, Abstract, and line 14.
It has been updated in the manuscript.
Comments 7: [ Figs. 1 & 5: Discussion of these figures are missing. All figures must be discussed in the main text.]
Response 7: Agree. We have added the discussion of all the images in the paper. The changes can be found in the revised manuscript-page 3\5\5\6\8, and Line 150\188\205\246\302.
It has been updated in the manuscript.
Comments 8: [ In Figs. 7, 9, 11 and 12, the color legends in each subfigure are not of the same scale. The reviewer suggests using one scale for all subfigures for the convenience of cross-comparison among the subfigures.]
Response 8: Agree. We have modified figures 7, 9, and 11 to share a single legend to make a more accurate comparison over time. No legend modification is carried out in Figure 12, because the spatial values of water supply, water demand and supply and demand are respectively shown in Figure 12. Since water supply and water demand do not belong to the same quantity level, the unified form of legend is not suitable for Figure 12.
The changes can be found in the revised manuscript-page10\12\14, and Line 303\359\393.
It has been updated in the manuscript.
Comments 9: [ Line 131: “…a DEM (Figure 3).” The parenthesis should be halfwidth, not fullwidth.]
Response 9: Agree. We have modified the parenthesis. The changes can be found in the revised manuscript-page 5, and Line 205.
It has been updated in the manuscript.
Comments 10: [Line 151: “error difference.” Is it error or difference?]
Response 10: We have revised “error difference.” to “difference”. The implication here is that using monthly data to validate results can reduce errors. The section has been rewritten due to changes to the paper.
It has been updated in the manuscript.
Comments 11: [Line 154: “…by manual tuning…” or “…by manually tuning…”]
Response 11: We have revised “…by manual tuning…” to “…by manually tuning…”.This is a grammatical error due to the author's negligence.The changes can be found in the revised manuscript-page 6, paragraph 2 and Line 248.
It has been updated in the manuscript.
Comments 12: [Lines 158-159: “Related studies … has achieved significant results.” What does that mean? “significant results” or “statistically significant results”?]
Response 12:
This sentence means that most relevant studies believe that RE > 20%, R2 > 0.6, and Ens > 0.5 represent passing the test, which is also a statistically significant test. We have revised “significant results” to “statistically significant results”. The changes can be found in the revised manuscript-page 6, and Line 253.
It has been updated in the manuscript.
Comments 13: [Lines 193-194: All the words “I” and “J” should be replaced with “i” and ‘j”, respectively.]
Response 13: Agree. We have revised all the words “I” and “J”to “i” and ‘j”. The changes can be found in the revised manuscript-page 8, and Line 292\293.
It has been updated in the manuscript.
Comments 14: [Line 252: “changes of water demand”. What change? Please define.]
Response 14: “changes of water demand” refers to the variation in water demand.We have revised “changes of water demand”to “variation of water demand”. The changes can be found in the revised manuscript-page 12, and Line 360.
It has been updated in the manuscript.
Comments 15: [Line 284: “supply and demand”. What does this mean? Is it supply, demand, or supply + demand, supply-demand, or something else. Can it be defined mathematically for the sake of clarity?]
Response 15:
“supply and demand” means “Water resource supply and demand balance” It is supply-demand.If defined mathematically, it means that if water supply minus demand is greater than or equal to 0, it means water resource balance in the region; if water supply minus demand is less than 0, it means water resource imbalance in the region.
So, We have modified “supply and demand” to “supply-demand”.The changes can be found in the revised manuscript-page 14, and Line 397.
It has been updated in the manuscript.
Comments 16: [Figure 12: In the color legend of the rate of change, it was noted by unit “m^3/10a”. What is “10a”? Also, what is this “rate of change”? Can it be defined mathematically for the sake of clarity?]
Response 16:
“10a” means 10 years. "rate of change" refers to the proportion of change of a certain variable in a certain period of time, which reflects the degree of growth or reduction of things, as well as the speed of change. Figure 12 Here refers to the degree of change of water supply and demand in 10 years, and also reflects the speed of change of water supply and demand.
The mathematical formula can be expressed as:
Rate of change = (n-m) /10a
n is the base value and m is the changed value.This formula is good for calculating the general rate of change, whether it is increasing or decreasing.
So, We have modified “Figure 12 shows the variation degree of water supply, demand and supply-demand in the study area on a 10-year time scale.” .The changes can be found in the revised manuscript-page 15, and Line 409.
It has been updated in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
