Assessment of Bottom-Up Satellite Precipitation Products on River Streamflow Estimations in the Peruvian Pacific Drainage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Three precipitation products are assessed in the paper. For this aim, 30 basins are evaluated by hydrological analysis. Then, simulated and observed streamflow data are compared in the paper. The subject is very important and the study is valuable in terms of the observation of streamflow in the river basins but the novelty of the study is emphasized insufficiently. Some suggestions and comments to the authors are presented below:

1. The flowchart of the suggested methodology should be given by more branches and in detail in Figure 2. Thus, the readers can easily follow the application procedures.

2. Some legends on the figures & maps should be presented better and live colours. Also, there are missing or wrong legends on the maps as borders (dashed lines), etc. See Figure 8 …

3. Conclusions part can be improved in the paper. Here is presented in a general concept.

4. What is the novelty of the paper? Traditional methods for hydrological simulations are explained in the paper. Supported and related studies should be strongly presented in the paper by emphasizing the novelty of the paper.

5. Literature part is looking weak. Give new and last updated examples from literature about “estimation of daily discharge” as

(2023). Recent advances and new frontiers in riverine and coastal flood modeling. Reviews of Geophysics, e2022RG000788.

(2022). Comparison of different ANN (FFBP, GRNN, RBF) algorithms and Multiple Linear Regression for daily streamflow prediction in Kocasu River, Turkey. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 31(5), 4699–4708.

6. Is the suggested methodology in the paper valid for all areas or is there any limitation, difficulty or classification for the application?

7. As one important step of the study, the statistical characteristics of used data (e.g. daily streamflow) should be presented in detail. The statistical properties as skewness, coefficient of variation, confidence intervals, distribution characteristics, min, max and median, etc. of used data should be given in a table.

8. The performance metrics part is weak in the paper. Only NSE and BIAS metrics are calculated. More metrics can be calculated to evaluate the application results as RMSE, RSR (Ratio of RMSE to the standard deviation of the observations) etc. …

9. The resolution of the spatial maps & figures can be increased.

Check the tenses of the sentences. There are present and past tenses in a paragraph. See the paragraphs in the Abstract.

There are some crucial errors.

Keywords should be ordered from A to Z.

The direction names should be started by capital letters such as Northern …

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I want to express my sincere gratitude for the constructive and valuable comments provided to enhance the current scientific article. The suggestions and observations have been of immense value and have significantly contributed to elevating the quality and relevance of the topic. Thanks to the feedback provided, I hope to make the article of great interest and impact to the scientific community and decision-makers. I trust that these modifications have addressed your concerns and improved the understanding of the article. I remain at your disposal for any further suggestions or additional comments.  (Please see the attachment)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and suggestions are provided in a PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I want to express my sincere gratitude for the constructive and valuable comments provided to enhance the current scientific article. The suggestions and observations have been of immense value and have significantly contributed to elevating the quality and relevance of the topic. Thanks to the feedback provided, I hope to make the article of great interest and impact to the scientific community and decision-makers. I trust that these modifications have addressed your concerns and improved the understanding of the article. I remain at your disposal for any further suggestions or additional comments.  (Please see the attachment)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

abstract: is always one paragraph, why you have three paragraph abstract?? This doesnt conform to the journal's standards for formatting manuscripts. 

It is not clear what is the contribution of the paper? " evaluates the performance of three precipitation products" I am not sure if this is significant contribution.

Keywords: it makes sense to add the three models evaluated here as keywords. 

Introduction: I think the link to natural disasters needs to be highlighted here, especially that we know that with climate change, the frequency and intensity of climate extremes will increase, as such its important to highlight the links between precipitation and flooding (e.g.10.1016/j.watres.2022.119100).  The changes in precipitation is also found to have a severe influence on ecological health and function of sensitive ecosystems (e.g. 10.1038/s41598-023-32343-8; 10.3390/hydrology10010016) and therefore understanding and predicting precipitation can significantly enhance environmental management and sustainable catchment management. These points will clearly make the case for the study and the methodological approach proposed and signify the importance of the problem and its applications. The literature presented in this paper should provide a broader context of the work rather than region-specific literature. Further to this, the gap analysis is not well described and needs to be properly described. This will have to tie in with the statement of objectives. 

Method: The study area and data are well described and contain all the relevant information. It can be helpful to provide some statistics about your dataset and its parameters. well done on providing detailed links to the datasets used in this study. 

In the method section, you need to better clarify what exactly entails bottom-up and top-down approaches.

A schematic showing a step-wise approach to preprocessing, processing, and postprocessing the data and the procedures to apply the methods mentioned can be very helpful to your readers and help you generate more impact from this paper. 

Results and discussions: this is well-structured and includes interesting results with nice graphics. 

A comparison of the performance of the methods used here with the literature can be useful. 

Conclusions: the study limitations and direction for future research should be mentioned.  

moderate proofread and language check will be needed. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I want to express my sincere gratitude for the constructive and valuable comments provided to enhance the current scientific article. The suggestions and observations have been of immense value and have significantly contributed to elevating the quality and relevance of the topic. Thanks to the feedback provided, I hope to make the article of great interest and impact to the scientific community and decision-makers. I trust that these modifications have addressed your concerns and improved the understanding of the article. I remain at your disposal for any further suggestions or additional comments.  (Please see the attachment)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

1. The abbreviations in the manuscript are confused, and many of them do not correspond well with their full name.

2. Why not compare SPPs data with site precipitation data, but verify the availability of SPPs data through hydrological model simulation?

3. L123: 3500 a masl? What does a stand for?

4. Is the shorthand for longitude wrong in the Figure 1a? Lack of necessary legend in the Figure 1b.

5. The biggest problem in this manuscript requires the authors' detailed explanation. Are the parameters of the hydrological model completely consistent for different SPPs data? Which SPPs data was used in the parameter calibration stage? The authors need to elaborate on the hydrological simulation scheme, otherwise I cannot judge whether the authors' study is correct and its value.

Extensive editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I want to express my sincere gratitude for the constructive and valuable comments provided to enhance the current scientific article. The suggestions and observations have been of immense value and have significantly contributed to elevating the quality and relevance of the topic. Thanks to the feedback provided, I hope to make the article of great interest and impact to the scientific community and decision-makers. I trust that these modifications have addressed your concerns and improved the understanding of the article. I remain at your disposal for any further suggestions or additional comments.  (Please see the attachment)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

There are two main points that need to be corrected in the article. According to comment 5 in the first round, additional suggested related works about estimation of daily discharge should be added to the paper.

A detailed explanation of the novelty of the paper is still missing. Because the authors express that this study is the first application of SPP in Pacific slope of Peru. From this point, the novelty of the study has weaknesses. To strengthen here, the novelties of the proposed method should also be emphasized. (Comment 4)

As a final, a flowchart of the applied methodology is suggested as comment 1 in the first round. The latest flowchart is better. However, there are some minor typos as “PRECIPTATION” … And, the boxes can be colourful similarly in the first version of the chart.

Thank the authors for their efforts on the paper revision and responses/corrections to the reviewers’ comments.

A final check has to be made by the authors. There are still minor typos.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I want to express my sincere gratitude for the constructive and valuable comments provided to enhance the current scientific article. The suggestions and observations have been of immense value and have significantly contributed to elevating the quality and relevance of the topic. Thanks to the feedback provided, I hope to make the article of great interest and impact to the scientific community and decision-makers. I trust that these modifications have addressed your concerns and improved the understanding of the article. I remain at your disposal for any further suggestions or additional comments.  (Please see the attachment)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript and also provided detailed responses to the comments raised in the previous round of reviews. I think the manuscript can be published now, but thorough proofreading will be needed. 

The language of the paper is mostly appropriate and follows the standard protocols. Proofreading will be needed. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the constructive and valuable comments provided to improve this scientific article. The suggestions and observations have been of immense value and have contributed significantly to raising the quality and relevance of the subject. Thanks to the comments provided, I hope that the article will be of great interest and impact to the scientific community and decision makers. We proceeded with the revision of the entire article.

Reviewer 4 Report

As for the third question last review, the authors seems to have misunderstood my meaning. What I want to ask is: “3. L123: 3500 a masl? What does “a“（after 3500） stand for?” 

I agree to use “masl”.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I want to express my sincere gratitude for the constructive and valuable comments provided to enhance the current scientific article. The suggestions and observations have been of immense value and have significantly contributed to elevating the quality and relevance of the topic. Thanks to the feedback provided, I hope to make the article of great interest and impact to the scientific community and decision-makers. I trust that these modifications have addressed your concerns and improved the understanding of the article. I remain at your disposal for any further suggestions or additional comments.  (Please see the attachment)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf