Next Article in Journal
Projections of Local Knowledge-Based Adaptation Strategies of Mexican Coffee Farmers
Next Article in Special Issue
Physical Modeling of Snow Gliding: A Case Study in the NW Italian Alps
Previous Article in Journal
Monitoring Urban Deprived Areas with Remote Sensing and Machine Learning in Case of Disaster Recovery
Previous Article in Special Issue
Future Hydrology of the Cryospheric Driven Lake Como Catchment in Italy under Climate Change Scenarios
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Glacio-Nival Regime Creates Complex Relationships between Discharge and Climatic Trends of Zackenberg River, Greenland (1996–2019)

Climate 2021, 9(4), 59; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9040059
by Karlijn Ploeg 1,†, Fabian Seemann 1,†, Ann-Kathrin Wild 1,2,† and Qiong Zhang 1,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Climate 2021, 9(4), 59; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9040059
Submission received: 9 March 2021 / Revised: 28 March 2021 / Accepted: 6 April 2021 / Published: 8 April 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The results of the presented study are interesting. They have scientific value since there are relatively few similar studies in the Arctic, especially in river basins located almost close to the ice sheets. I have a few recommendations for improving the content of the manuscript.

  1. On the map in Figure 1, it is desirable to show the boundary of the basin of the studied river. For many readers, it is somewhat problematic to navigate without this in the river basin structure's geographical features.
  2. Lines 128-130. You (or your colleagues) did not measure the Zackenberg River's discharge in winter (when the river was covered with ice) for technical reasons. However, is there any information on the share of winter (under-ice) river discharge in the total annual discharge? Perhaps this issue can be clarified with similar (analogous) rivers in other parts of the island. Winter discharge is also subject to changes due to climate change.
  3. Lines 150-152. Let the reader to what extent the snow depth data measured at the Zackenberg station represent the entire river basin. It is known that this depth largely depends on the features of the topography. And in your case, it is very heterogeneous.
  4. Lines 163-164. Give a more substantiated explanation of why you chose linear regression. Its simplicity isn't exactly a scientific explanation.
  5. Lines 172-174. Delete these lines.
  6. Figure 4. What is the statistical significance of all identified trends? Give relevant information on the charts.
  7. Section 2.3. Snow. It would be better to name this section Snow Cover. Because Snow is also precipitation, in such a case, all the information in this section would need to be included in the above section (4.2.2. Precipitation).
  8. In the Discussion and Conclusions, you wrote that the river analyzed is unique in the Arctic. Under your study, its water discharge does not show any trends compared with the rest of the Arctic regions. However, to assert this, the observation periods must be more or less comparable in all cases. Studies of the discharge of many rivers in the Arctic basin began long before active global warming in the region (the 1980s). Consequently, trend analysis was/is given for a more extended period. Your observations were being conducted just when global warming was already in "full swing". It would be best to give the reader the observation periods in each comparison case you mention.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very interesting study. I enjoyed reading the manuscript. Nevertheless, it needs some further improvements. In general, there are still some occasional grammar errors throughout the manuscript, especially the article "the," "a," and "an" is missing in many places; please make a spellchecking in addition to these minor issues. The reviewer has listed some specific comments that might help the authors further enhance the manuscript's quality.

  1. Specific Comments

 

  • Introduction
  • The objectives should be more explicitly stated.
  • The authors need to enrich the background further. The following literature  might be useful in this regard << Seasonality shift and streamflow flow variability trends in central India>>,you may review other additional relevant references as well.
  • What is the novelty of this work?

 

 

  • Methods
  • The methodology limitation should be mentioned.
  • All variables should be explained.

 

  • Results
  • This section is well written.

 

 

  • Discussion
  • The discussion should summarize the main finding(s) of the manuscript in the context of the broader scientific literature and address any limitations of the study or results that conflict with other published work.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the answers and corrections to the manuscript.

Back to TopTop