Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The objective of this study was to use the spatiotemporal distribution characteristics of actual evapotranspiration in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. By analyzing the spatiotemporal distribution of actual evapotranspiration, researchers aimed to gain insights into the dynamics of the water cycle and ecological processes in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. The study found that evapotranspiration decreased from southeast to northwest, with strong southeastern regions and maximum values in the Hengduan Mountains. Summer was the highest, and it decreased from southeast to northwest. Spring and autumn were uniform, with little overall difference, and winter had the least. The Qinghai-Tibet Plateau had three spatial distribution modes: significant changes centered on Tibet, east-west reverse type, and east-west "negative-positive-negative" of the three-pole space distributed. This paper's research is solid enough to be accepted for publication in the Atmosphere Journal. While the quality of the work is important when conducting a review, validation, and adaptation for the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, the authors should consider the following recommendations to make the article stronger:

1.      References included in the abstract section should be removed. When writing an abstract, it is important to include only the most relevant information about the research or paper. This means that any references included in the abstract should be removed, as they are not necessary for understanding the main points of the work. By removing references from the abstract, readers can focus on the key findings and conclusions without getting distracted by specific sources. 

2.      The referencing style of the journal should be followed by the authors.

3.      The introduction section should be improved with recent studies between 2021-2023.

4.      The author should use a frequency distribution figure to show all of the input and output parameters used for analyzing the data in Figures 1–7.

Minor editing is required

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. I recommend major revision and resubmission.

2. Major English edition needed. 

3. Line 19: use "largest" instead of "highest"

4.  Line 26 and many other parts of the paper: do not use "mutation", which denotes genetic changes in DNA; use instead "rapid change" or "step change".

5. Section 2: the authors do not explicitly state it, but it seems they used actual evapotranspiration data from ERA5 reanalysis. Is the inference correct on my part? 

6. Lines 90-91: "the EOF method can find time series and spatial patterns". I believe the authors mean " the EOF method can find temporal and spatial patterns".

7. Lines 104-116 about the Mann-Kendall test: It is true that the Mann-Kendall test does not require a distribution for the actual evapotranspiration (AET) data. However, it requires that the AET values be independent. For this reason it is common to pre-whiten the data when there is temporal correlation. The authors do not cite this issue in their data analysis.

8. Figure 2: state that this is actual evapotranspiration, and I think it is average annual actual evapotranspiration (from ERA5 reanalysis).

9. Figure 2: the units cannot be mm/m^2: the units are  in mm of depth of AET (average annual evapotranspiration).

10. Figure 3: it represent average seasonal actual evapotranspiration. The units cannot be mm/m^2: the units are in mm of depth of AET. 

11. Figure 4: why are the units of average annual AET in W/ m^2 (Watts per meter squared)? the units must in mm. 

12. Figure 5: use "(left panes)" instead of "(the left)"; use "(right panes)" instead the "(the right)"

13. Line 260: use "Frequency analysis" and not "Cycle analysis".

14. Figure 6: this is a graph of the power spectrum of Average annual actual evapotranspiration? 

 

 

Paper must be thoroughly English edited.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Opinion:

In this paper, the author studied the Spatiotemporal distribution characteristics of actual evapotranspiration in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau during 1981-2020. The authors measured the actual evapotranspiration in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, and the temporal and spatial variation characteristics, variation laws and changes were analyzed by methods such as cumulative anomalies and Mann-Kendall trend test.

The subject treated in the manuscript is suitable for the journal. The abstract is well written presenting a summary of the methodology and results. The introduction section is processed at sufficient levels. The materials and methods section is adequate. The MS is properly organized, clear, and concise.  The article effectively discussed the research findings. The conclusions are supported by the results. The manuscript deserves to be published after minor revision.

Minor Revisions:

Carefully revise the language of MS because there are many grammatical errors, at many places no space between words, and keep the font size and style consistent in the MS.

In abstract remove references.

Line 44-46 check the tense of the sentence.

Line 51 other water bodies,

The authors should clearly describe in the Introduction the novelty of the study.

Move Line 69-75 in materials and methods section.

Label the section 3 with Results and discussion.

Line 125 write the unit (mm•m^-2) of evapotranspiration as mm m^-2.

Rewrite line 275-279.

In line 287….. trend.

Rewrite lines 303-306.

Move Lines 307-312 to the conclusion section.

Label section 4 with conclusion.

In line 314 correct the spelling….second (PC2)

In line 336 and 340 capitalize ‘EOF’

Move lines 340-346 to the results and discussion section.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

In my opinion, the topic is important and interesting, but the paper lacks novelty in the current presentation.
The scientific soundness of the results in the form shown in the paper is weak. Furthermore, several papers are already on the same topic, even more detailed and complete. There are plenty of study on ET over Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. What is the new novel contribution in this paper is hard to justify.
There should be a clear knowledge gap to be closed by the research to be worth publishing in this Journal. Atmosphere is high-quality reputable journal with high IF; publishing in this journal is very competitive and requires scientific soundness and novel contribution. In view of lacking this, I recommend the rejection of the present manuscript in its present form.

It should be properly corrected for the English language and clear sentences. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for addressing all the issues raised

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed my review comments in their revised paper.

I recommend publication.

 

Minor editing recommended.

Reviewer 4 Report

The answer to the comments about the significance and novelty of the research is not addressed adequately. I am not satisfied with the answer.  The main scientific issue is lacking. I suggest working more in-depth and then submitting again. Thank you.

The writing skill needs to be improved.