Assessing Future Hydrological Variability in a Semi-Arid Mediterranean Basin: Soil and Water Assessment Tool Model Projections under Shared Socioeconomic Pathways Climate Scenarios

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents the effects of future scenarios (climate change within SSPs) on the hydrometeorology of a catchment in Iran. In general, the paper is well written, well-structured, the methodological steps are well described and the main results are given both through informative graphs and detailed text. The work is worthy of publication as it was well conducted and the results show new results for the hydrology of a region. There are a few comments which may improve the current version however:

1) The Introduction is rather small. Additional references with SSPs and simulation through SWAT could be used. Example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969718303243. Also, the last paragraph contains parts of the methodology. No need to do that here. The introduction should end with the scope, no references to the methodological steps are needed.

2) The statistics (Eq 1, 2, 3) are well known, this is the case with the water balance equation in SWAT as well (Eq. 4). All these could be skipped to save space. 

3) It remains unclear to me how the SDSM model was evaluated. Does Table 1 contain the comparison statistics between model performance and observations from point stations?

4) All Figures are informative. However, it seems that the resolution could be improved to make them even clearer. This concerns all Figures with graphs, column bars etc.

5) The SWAT calibration results are not actually results of the stady. In my opinion they fit better to 'Methodology'. Moreover, Table 2 contains only 8 parameters which were used for calibration and some of them are watershed scale parameters. Why others were neglected? For example others in gw files, in sol files etc..

6) Finally, can the Conclusions section be reduced to some extent?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of Assessing Future Hydrological Variability in a Semi-Arid Mediterranean Basin: SWAT Model Projections under SSP Climate Scenarios

The paper applied the SWAT model with the aid of SDSM to model hydrological changes in a semi-arid Mediterranean basin in Iran. Due to the following reasons, I do not find it suitable for publication in WATER.

The main shortcoming of the work lies in its weakness in providing a fair discussion on the outcomes of this study and a pertinent one that applies the same methodology.

The representation of the results is not suitable. Looking at Figs. 8 and 9 illustrates that the authors failed to use more modern diagnostic tools to present their results.

Not enough evidence has been given to show the semi-arid Mediterranean climate of the case study.

The outcomes of the study (results, discussion, and suggestions) solely depend on the case study. In this case, the paper should be submitted as a case study rather than a research paper.

The abstract needs rewriting. The authors gave some primary information about a region and then represented the results. I could not find any consistency among the paragraphs of the Abstract.

Keywords should be different from those of title and abstract words.

The literature review of the research requires updating. More recent works should be considered.

The topics of the figures are not self-explanatory. For example, Figs. 1 and 2 should give more descriptions for the figure.

More information should be provided for the “Description of the study area” that can relate to Fig. 1.

In addition to RMSE, R, and NSE, the authors should take into account Bias and tendency criteria in their work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Acceptable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read an article that aims to contribute to understanding the impact of climate change on the water balance of watersheds in different climatic regions of the world, particularly in Iran. While the authors followed the expected steps to downscale and apply the SWAT model, and their results fall within the expected range for the site, I believe that the article needs significant improvements to adequately analyse the results and provide practical recommendations for future applications of the model and the downscaling process. Specifically, there are several points that the authors must address to provide a better context for interpreting the results and to facilitate a more productive discussion. It is essential that the authors recognize their shortcomings and take the necessary steps to make the required corrections. I am confident that the authors have the resources to improve the discussion by offering insightful suggestions and topics for further investigation, especially if issues do not have a clear answer.

It is imperative that the authors summarize the issues that prompted their paper and clearly state their final reflections. The issues at hand are a matter of great importance, including a debate in Central Europe that strongly questions the idea of increased droughts with climate change, and the urgent need to examine the future water balance of a crucial watershed in Iran.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comment

The paper is interesting and addresses the issue comprehensively and thoroughly future hydrological variability in semi-arid mediterranean basin. The introduction is well constructed, the materials and methods well described, and the results represent what was previously described. Conclusions thus support from the data and results. Just a few small inaccuracies to fix; however, a revision of the English is necessary.

Specific comments

Line 32: it is necessary to add at least one recent bibliographical reference.

Line 45: it is necessary add a bibliographic reference.

Line 186: it is necessary to add at least one recent bibliographical reference.

Lines 310-312: It is necessary to explain which area of ​​the catchment you are referring to.

Line 334: Figure 6 caption. The indication of “a” and “b” have been forgotten.

Lines 340-345: How were these percentages calculated? Explain, please. The same for the lines 351-355 and lines 362-364

Lines 377-378: Where does the frequency of high-flow days have decreased emerge from the analyzes that have been done? from which elements?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A revision of the English is necessary. It's not always easy to read

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the paper. However the following minor issues should be taken into account prior to making the final decision.

The representation of the results through the Figures 3 (adding the residual error) and Figure 8 (providing higher quality) should be enhanced. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have thoroughly reviewed all my observations and comments. They responded adequately to my inquiries and corrected the text, significantly improving it. My only final request is to include better-quality figures, a detail that the editor could check. 

Therefore, I consider the paper to be publishable in its current state. I congratulate the authors for their efforts. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf