Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a classic approach to the application of several drought indices for a study area. There are several issues that should be considered in the text

1- Abstract, P 1, Ls 18-19: "The main conclusion is that there is no universally better index". Such a conclusion can not be drawn from your results! 

2- Meteorological data. P 4, Ls 167-168. What was the test for homogeneity? what were the results?

3- From Eq 1 to the last equation, you have to introduce the variables within the equations, or you may use a nomenclature table

4- P 7, L 236. Provide the link or citation for R packages

5- Statistical tests, P 12, Ls 370-371, why did you use a zero-lag correlation/ Euclidian distance analysis? we already know that the effect of precipitation has lagged effect on the remaining variables. I also wonder why did you neglect short-term indices. e.g. SPI-1, SPEI-3 etc

6- Results, P 12, L 381, "the SPI-9 months and SPEI-9 months have the highest correlations". Could be related to the application of water year instead of a normal year?

7-Table 4, P 13. Why didn't you provide information for the "**" Asterix sign? is it the significant one? what is the confidence level or P-value

8- Figures 6-7 needs horizontal and vertical captions as well

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The work discusses the results of analyzes concerning a local problem (Portugal region). However, the authors referred to the results of other studies and analyzes. What I clearly miss at work is a reference to a practical, application summary. In the introduction, the authors mention the Portuguese forest project, for which the results of the analyzes may be helpful. However, there is no explicit reference in the summary to specific examples of the decision support process in which these results can be helpful. The work would undoubtedly gain value if it were supplemented with a discussion of these issues. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx