Advancements in Remote Sensing for Evapotranspiration Estimation: A Comprehensive Review of Temperature-Based Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The ET estimation is very critical for hydrological studies. This manuscript summarized the ET models from RS data. This is helpful for ET estimation in regional scale. Unfortunately, the suggestions on model selection for different conditions were not given in this manuscript, which should increase the value for the readers. So I suggest to add this parts.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

please find enclosed some hints that will help you to improve your work.

Kind regards

Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English used in the manuscript is good.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject of interest of this manuscript is the estimation of evapotranspiration by using remote sensing data. More specifically, it is focused on the temperature-based methods. The main objective is to synthesize fundamental theories and to trace the development history of temperature-based methods in order to offer a comparative analysis of the advantages and limitations of these methods. In this context, the manuscript contains all required elements. However, according to mentioned objectives in the introduction section, it also attempts to establish a reference for development of these methods in future. This objective seems a little too ambitious because it is not clear where is the contribution of authors in this context. This paper only contains a synthesis of advantages and disadvantages collected from other studies, which is ok, but it should be clearer. It also does not contain a discussion section, so the recommendations of authors are blurred throughout the paper, or do not exist at all. Finally, it should be emphasized that “a study” cannot be considered as a reference (L675, 683, 698, etc.). The authors must be more precise.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx