Analysis and Evaluation of Extreme Rainfall Trends and Geological Hazards Risk in the Lower Jinshajiang River

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript  deals with a very important topic. The subject is of interest to Applied Sciences readers, but the manuscript has some shortcomings that need to be corrected.The editorial staff of the article could have been more careful. The necessary fixes are listed below:

1) Please explain the designations (e.g. R10mm ,Rx5day, CWD) in e.g. Figures 1 and 2.

2) Tables must be referenced in the text.

3) Line 82 – The table designation is wrong (Table 2.9). Label each figure with a letter.

4) Figure 5. The title of the X-axis is incorrect.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor

This manuscript addressed an interesting subject and a suitable case study to publish in Applied sciences; however, I'm writing some comments and asking some questions that before publication the authors should clarify and answer to them. In the following you can find comments:

 

1-      In introduction section, are written "With the development of society and economy, geo- 30 logical disasters show an increasing trend", please could you explain why? What is the relation of geo-hazards and development? Add your answer to text and clarify it.

2-      In section 3.1, are written: " All 22 districts and counties in the study area have geological hazards, and this study 94 mainly focuses on landslides and mudslides.", by which facts you claim? Please clarify this sentence by giving some geological data (e.g., studies that had been carried out based on geophysical investigations or geological studies) or historical disasters about target area (e.g., catastrophic landslides in the study region)! By your explanation the reader will be familiar with the study area and appreciate better your study value and findings.

3-      Please tell readers more about data? what is your mean of Slope ? How you get data? Please give some information about the type of faults and rocks in the region? I think a geological map that indicates to the rocks and faults and etc. would be interest.

4-      In manuscript you used GIS-based techniques, it would be good if you briefly speak about it and mentioned to some application in different areas (e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12518-010-0027-8, in this paper weight of evidence in GIS is applied to integrate different outputs of  remote sensing imageries)

5-      Please revised figure 3 and clarify symbols, e.g., what is pink rectangle?

6-      Please revise the figures and use same font and size for labels (e.g. Figure 5 is inappropriate)

7-      It will be so valuable if you discuss more about how the landslide could be control? Or mitigate the probable damage of landslides!

Thanks

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper, author studied “Analysis and Evaluation of Extreme Rainfall Trends and Geo-2 logical Hazards Risk in the Lower Jinshajiang River”

 This is an interesting manuscript, and it brings some interesting and useful information, and I think that the manuscript has a potential to be published in the journal. However, there are some recommended amendments are required as follow:

Line 39: What dose AI mode stands for?  Please clarify

 

Line 22 – 25: The results presented in the abstract section is not representative, please add more detailed results as for what is presented at the conclusion section

 

Line 59-60: “However, the number of heavy rain days, extreme heavy rain days and heavy rain days from 1961 to 2020 can reach 40, 20 and 4 days, respectively” what is the difference between the first heavy rain days and the third one? There should be a mistake here, please double check.

 

By the end of the introduction section, here author should present the main aim of the study and also to have a clear hypothesis.

 

Line 62: What dose CDD index stands for?  Please clarify

Figure 5: Please correct the axis title to “Monthly cumulative rainfall”

-          Please add a main title for the Methodology, readers may get the feeling that the results section is mixed up with the methodology section.

-          The sup-titles 5.2, and 5.3 should be moved to the methodology section. This is a clear description for the used analysis!!!

The discussion part is not enough for the presented results.

 

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The article does not present a clear methodology chapter. 

It does not talk about the origin of the data used, what is the percentage of gaps, how they were filled, etc.

In addition, the article does not show where the rainfall stations are in the basin and does not explain the methodology for the classification of severe events. This should be minimally described in a methodology chapter. There are several ways to calculate this type of index. A justification of the choice of indices would also be necessary.  

The authors do not talk about the origin of the data that led to the creation of figure 3.

In the discussions the physical characteristics of the region are not explored, such as soil type and depth, land use, etc. Not even a digital elevation model of the area is shown.

 

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear sir,

Manuscript is well organized. 

Please improve discussion and English writing. Also, climateclassification of study area can help you to increase visibility.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The improvements made to the article were important, making it more scientific. But I confess that I have never seen a time series of environmental monitoring without some failure. But if the authors confirmed this information, that's fine.