Exploring the Added Value of Sub-Daily Bias Correction of High-Resolution Gridded Rainfall Datasets for Rainfall Erosivity Estimation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article evaluates the impact of sub-daily bias correction on high-resolution gridded rainfall products (RPs) and their subsequent use in estimating rainfall erosivity in Burkina Faso. The study is well-organized, and the findings are useful for the study region. However, the following points should be addressed in the revised version for further improvement:

1. Since extreme rainfall events are critical for impact analysis, the performance of the bias-corrected gridded data in capturing extreme rainfall was not sufficiently analyzed.
2. The discussion section should be enhanced by comparing the findings with similar studies conducted in nearby African regions.
3. The reliability of the reference data used for bias correction is not clearly stated and should be elaborated upon.
4. The study should include a comprehensive uncertainty assessment to strengthen the robustness of the findings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing is required.

Author Response

Our response to Reviewer #1 is provided in the document attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Recommendations for authors

In general, I consider the article to be good and relevant to the topic of erosion and soil conservation, emphasizing the study of one of the elements used to determine erosion rates (USLE).

We suggest some checks and changes.

Change the keywords, using a different word than what was used in the title, this helps the article to be indicated in searches by other researchers.

There is a colon on line 62.

The paragraph between lines 141 and 152 does not seem appropriate to be part of the methodology/area of ​​study, it should be placed in the INTRODUCTION or in the DISCUSSIONS (it is justifying the need to study erosion in the area, it is not appropriate in this space).

In Table 1, is annual precipitation not a result?

Wouldn't Figure 2 be a result? And the following paragraph too?

Many articles cited at the same time (the comments could be separated by different citations).

I think the citation numbers are sometimes not correct, shouldn't they be in ascending order?

Furthermore, the article adheres to the journal.

Author Response

Our response to Reviewer #2 is provided in the document attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Our response to Reviewer #3 is provided in the document attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx