Characterizing the 2022 Extreme Drought Event over the Poyang Lake Basin Using Multiple Satellite Remote Sensing Observations and In Situ Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDrought Events monitoring with satellite remote sensing observations are a hot topic and of great significance for ecological protection. The work is interesting and can be published after a major revision with the following comments:
1. The abstract should provide more specific conclusions, highlighting the innovative aspects of the work.
2. The longitude and latitude of Figure 1 only need to be given in degrees, and the image resolution is too low.
3.The drought monitoring based on meteorological station observations has been 44 widely applied due to its high accuracy: Lack of necessary literature citations.
4.why using “Gaussian smoothing and high-order decorrelation filtering” to make denoise on GRACE?
5.Figure 3, why csrmascon is higher than the others? Is there a systematic deviation
6.Table 1 just keep 2 decimal places.
7.Figure 9 the “error” is not clear? Error for SAR or DIH…? Also the range of error fluctuations is large, up to 900 km2? Is such a large error normal, what is the cause of this error? Why not do a noise reduction?
8.Figure 15 a, b: Data fitting is significantly worse than other results?R2=0.6?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMultiple satellite datasets, including GRACE water storage changes, GPM precipitation dataset, and GLDAS 16 dataset, were utilized for the identification of the drought event in Lake Poyang in 2022. Unfortunately, the manuscript was poorly organized and lacked novelty. in addition, the concepts of extreme drought events, drought events, and hydrological drought events were used inconsistently.
- The title talks about Extreme Drought Events across the lake basin, however, the abstract talks about the identification of the drought event in the Lake.
- The attained results were not reported in the Abstract.
- Figure 1 and the Study area must be presented in a separate section.
- The introduction section missed a review of similar studies.
- What is the additional value of 1-year drought analysis?
- Analyzing the Time series of precipitation, the water level in the lake, and the water body extent, is not called characterizing extreme drought events.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate improvement is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
in my opinion, your paper has potential for publishing after major revision. The weakest point is conclusion . You made conclusions about something you did not observe and you did not make conclusions about the main task of your research- using of remote sensing in drught analysis ( possibilities, weakness, strengths, etc)
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 AuthorsIn this study the authors analyzing the 2022 drought event in the Poyang Lake Basin using different remotely sensed datasets along with station data. The selection of datasets used is comprehensive and is providing a solid footing for the attempted analysis. The abstract is an informative summary of the methods but does not include any kind of results. I would suggest adding a sentence or two to what the study results were and why are they important to the science community.
The introduction is very well written, but again lacks some examples of what previous studies have done and why the method proposed here is important and what it contributes to the science community.
The method section describes the data and methods used clearly. Section 3.5 (NDVI) could benefit from some more details of what dataset was used. The results show the different findings and support them with informative figures. The authors took the time to investigate not just the water storage change, but also the water extent. The discussion and conclusion are very informative but lack some more explanation on what the results mean and what we can learn from it. The proposed efforts of including the basin area and analyzing a longer time series will make this method stronger. Text edits and specific comments are found in the file to improve the manuscript’s quality.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsplease find my comments in the attached document
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
see the attached document
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has take all my comments and improved the manuscript. It can be accepted now.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors only addressed my minor comments and neglected the major shortcomings of their work. The manuscript still suffers from a lack of novelty and poor organization. The authors' responses to my comments 5 and 6 are not convincing. In the reviewer's opinion, the manuscript is not suitable for publication in scholarly journals.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, thank you for your responses. I have no more further comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for addressing my comments. The paper has greatly improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have significantly improved the manuscript in the latest version and have addressed most of my concerns.
The most significant issues I saw with the revised manuscript were [1] A brief discussion is needed near the mention of Figure 1 for the general reader describing water management of the Poyang Lake basin. The authors responded to me with some of these details, but they should also be included in the manuscript to provide context for the reader to know if water level and river flow is impacted by human factors and when, if ever, there are seasonal variations due to human intervention. [2] There is no need to extend Figure 9 of the new manuscript into 2022 and 2023 since Dahiti data ends in early 2021 and cannot be compared to the SAR time series. [3] Some color choices in the figures (e.g., Fig. 6a) are still too similar so that color-blind readers will have difficulty discerning curves corresponding to each of the data sources. Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNone.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
