Impact of Climate Variability on Rainfall Characteristics in the Semi-Arid Shashe Catchment (Botswana) from 1981–2050
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
After reviewing the article “Impact of climate variability on rainfall characteristics in the Semi-Arid Shashe Catchment (Botswana) from 1981-2050” I provide to the authors my comments for revision. In general, the article is interesting and deals with an up-to-dated topic that raises the concern of scientific community over the last years. Specifically:
In the introduction part add some examples and highlight the effects of climate variability on natural ecosystems, such as soil erosion (https://www.cjees.ro/viewTopic.php?topicId=652 ), water resources (https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006785), wildfires (https://doi.org/10.3390/f6051476).
Please give any appropriate reference regarding the Research Station Weather Generator (LARS-WG) model the first time mentioned in the text.
Clearly state the research gap answered from the current study and the added value comparing with published papers.
Figure 1. Add a basemap. The reader in the current version cannot understand where the study area is.
Give a table summarizing the data sources used in this research.
Add some further details about the targets for future research. It is not very comprehensive “Therefore, this study recommends further studies on the potential effect of land use change on rainfall-runoff process”. You should justify what direction for future research derived from the current approach
Some minor revision are needed
Author Response
See attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
ASSESSMENT REPORT
Title: Impact of climate variability on rainfall characteristics in the 2 Semi-Arid Shashe Catchment (Botswana) from 1981-2050
Manuscript Number: earth-2383685
I find the manuscript interesting,the paper is average-written and low-argued. There are an overall coherence and relation to the scope of publication in the journal. However several aspects must be improved:
Please make sure that there is a scientific objective in your manuscript. Using different techniques and comparing them for a given region is not enough for a scientific publication. The manuscript must include: What is the main aim novelty in this study.
The assumptions of the method used in trend analysis have not been checked. The Modified Mann Kendall (MMK) method can be more suitable. In addition the spatio-temporal trends of the data should be identified using the Innovative trend analysis methods for detailing analysis.The methodology section can be more updated with the help of following references with involve the recent trend analysis methods.
· Şen, Z. (2012). Innovative trend analysis methodology. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 17(9), 1042-1046.
· Birpınar, M.E., Kızılöz, B. & Şişman, E. Classic trend analysis methods’ paradoxical results and innovative trend analysis methodology with percentile ranges. Theor Appl Climatol (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-023-04449-6
Line 620 “…spatial distribution of each quantile mapped in the study using distance inverse Interpolation method as shown in Figure 8-9-10-11.” Why? What is this model’s performance? The model result can be compared with one or two methodologies, should also given results with a table.
When I compare the model results presented in the following tables, it is seen that very important findings should have been obtained and discussed that should not be missed for authors and readers. It has not been discussed enough. There is inconsistency between the data set results. When the observed and 30 years projected data set trend results are compared with the observed trend results, it is seen that there are significant differences that cannot be explained. Even though 40 years of 70 years of data set have been observed, this is a very important difference. The quality of observation data set and projected data set should be questioned. Discussion of these results and inconsistency can be a more suitable research topic for this study.
|
Annual maximum rainfall |
||||||||
|
1981-2020 |
RCP 2.6 |
RCP 4.5 |
RCP 8.5 |
|||||
|
Location |
Z |
SS |
Z |
SS |
Z |
SS |
Z |
SS |
|
Sebina |
-3,19 |
-0,99 |
1,19 |
0,21 |
0,39 |
0,05 |
1,45 |
0,2 |
|
Masunga |
-1,92 |
-0,61 |
0,82 |
0,11 |
-0,21 |
-0,02 |
-0,21 |
-0,02 |
|
Jackalas_2 |
-1,7 |
-0,58 |
1,58 |
0,23 |
0,24 |
0,02 |
1,21 |
0,18 |
|
Francistown |
-1,32 |
-0,31 |
1,02 |
0,13 |
-0,15 |
-0,01 |
1,45 |
0,18 |
|
Ramokgwebana |
-0,43 |
-0,17 |
1,37 |
0,23 |
0,85 |
0,13 |
1,4 |
0,24 |
|
Matsiloje |
-0,05 |
-0,003 |
0,89 |
0,11 |
-0,11 |
-0,01 |
0,96 |
0,15 |
|
Siviya |
0,68 |
0,31 |
0,43 |
0,05 |
-1,31 |
-0,15 |
-1,6 |
-0,19 |
|
Senyawe |
1,42 |
0,59 |
3,61 |
0,7 |
2,63 |
0,5 |
3,4 |
0,66 |
|
Tonota |
1,48 |
0,48 |
3,43 |
0,51 |
2,38 |
0,31 |
3,5 |
0,5 |
|
Mathangwane |
3,13 |
0,92 |
3,12 |
0,42 |
2,04 |
0,23 |
2,75 |
0,36 |
“The Tau and Z-value for annual maximum rainfall indicates a decreasing trend for Francistown, Jackalas_2, Masunga, Matsiloje, Ramokgwebana and Sebina. They show a decrease in annual maximum rainfall by a range between 0-1 mm per year.” This tendency has not seen in RCP scenarios. Why? Is it an acceptable situation?
“However, the trend and their magnitude are not statistically significant with exception to Mathangwane and Sebina which has P-value less than the critical value and magnitude trend around 1 mm as shown in Table 3.” In the case of identifing the trends with the ITA method, there is no such restriction. In this way, researchers will be able to evaluate their findings more easily and realistically.
“Few negative trends have been detected for Francistown, Masunga, Matsiloje and Siviya under RCP 4.5 climate scenario and for Masunga and Siviya under RCP 8.5 climate scenario” When the tables are examined, it is seen that it does not coincide with the trends in the observed data. Why?
|
Total annual rainfall |
||||||||
|
1981-2020 |
RCP 2.6 |
RCP 4.5 |
RCP 8.5 |
|||||
|
Location |
Z |
SS |
Z |
SS |
Z |
SS |
Z |
SS |
|
Francistown |
-1,32 |
-2,68 |
3,84 |
3,27 |
2,66 |
2,01 |
3,71 |
3,17 |
|
Mathangwane |
-0,27 |
-1 |
3,05 |
4,04 |
2,94 |
3,54 |
2,52 |
2,96 |
|
Ramokgwebana |
-0,24 |
-0,27 |
5,32 |
6,66 |
3,88 |
3,75 |
5 |
5,45 |
|
Masunga |
0,44 |
0,7 |
0,18 |
0,25 |
0,11 |
0,1 |
0,11 |
0,1 |
|
Tonota |
0,66 |
1,18 |
1,86 |
1,79 |
2,74 |
2,77 |
1,04 |
0,85 |
|
Jackalas_2 |
1,33 |
3,67 |
3,82 |
3,68 |
2,29 |
2,07 |
4,03 |
3,89 |
|
Siviya |
1,64 |
6,23 |
0,45 |
0,58 |
-0,56 |
-0,73 |
-0,41 |
-0,49 |
|
Senyawe |
1,71 |
3,86 |
3,8 |
3,97 |
4,03 |
4,36 |
2,48 |
2,43 |
|
Matsiloje |
2,31 |
6,84 |
1,3 |
1,29 |
1 |
0,93 |
1,35 |
1,25 |
|
Sebina |
2,57 |
8,04 |
1,75 |
2,17 |
0,1 |
0,08 |
1,45 |
1,67 |
Line 522 “Significant decreasing trend is detected in Francistown, Mathangwane and Ramokgwebana” according to what?
Line 709 “In a 10-year return interval for observed data, RCP 2.5 and RCP 8.5, a rainfall range between 91-120 mm covers at least 94% area of the entire catchment.” and line 719 “A 200-year rainfall that ranges between 196-225 mm under RCP 4.5 and 8.5 have high spatial coverage of at least 79% and 720 82% respectively” is there any evidence to support this situation? As far as I can see, there is no such trend according to the observation data.
I request author to share the code of the method (model materials and files) and data used. I wish to check some part.
May be a flow chart methodology is appropriate.
Conclusion section needs to be more scientifically written.
Sincerely,
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
see attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for answers. The manuscript has improved to a good extent.
The writing level of the manuscript has been greatly improved after the modification. Please carefully check the format of the paper, such as font, paragraph spacing, alignment format, etc., to ensure that the format meets the requirements of the journal.
Authors should add separate section regarding future outlook and specific comment point wise based on their study.
The findings in "Conclusions" Section should be stated point by point. A contextualization has to be added as incipit, in order to make the Conclusions section self-standing. Please make a few-line conclusion about the work. It can be the essence of all the results. It should be suggestive about the best practice for future works.
I think that the present manuscript is suitable after minor revision for publication.
Sincerely,
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Journal Earth (ISSN 2673-4834)
Manuscript ID earth-2383685
Type : Article
Title: Impact of climate variability on rainfall characteristics in the Semi-Arid Shashe Catchment (Botswana) from 1981-2050
Editor and Reviewer comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
Reviewer #2
The writing level of the manuscript has been greatly improved after the modification. Please carefully check the format of the paper, such as font, paragraph spacing, alignment format, etc., to ensure that the format meets the requirements of the journal.
RESPONSE: The authors appreciate the comment, and this will improve the quality of the manuscript. The manuscript has been formatted accordingly, all editions are highlighted in red. For instance, gramma corrections in the introduction paragraph 1,3 and 6, section 2.5 paragraph 1 and section 2.6 paragraph 1 and 2 highlighted in red. The font has been changed to Palatino Linotype (size 9 for abstract and 10 throughout), paragraph spacing, and alignment was formatted according to the journals requirements.
Reviewer #2
Authors should add separate section regarding future outlook and specific comment point wise based on their study.
RESPONSE: The authors agree and appreciate the suggestion. The section has been added below the conclusion see future outlooks section highlighted in red.
Reviewer #2
The findings in "Conclusions" Section should be stated point by point. A contextualization has to be added as incipit, in order to make the Conclusions section self-standing.
RESPONSE: Thank for the insightful comment. Amendments have been made accordingly see bullet points in the conclusion.
Reviewer #2
Please make a few-line conclusion about the work. It can be the essence of all the results. It should be suggestive about the best practice for future works.
RESPONSE: The authors agree and appreciate the suggestion as it will add value to the manuscript. This has been incorporated in the last paragraph of the conclusion.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
