Precipitation Trends and Alteration in Wei River Basin: Implication for Water Resources Management in the Transitional Zone between Plain and Loess Plateau, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents an interesting approach based on a index for precipitation change (called IPA). Overall, the method presented sounds correct and effective and my opinion is positive. The index combines both structural and functional (i.e. effects on human development). The inclusion of functional indicators increases the applicability of the method.
I have only minor comments before publication.
In general, even if the manuscript is a methodological paper, it would greatly benefit from a discussion on the potential application of the method. For example, as climate change is significantly and increasingly affecting ecosystem services and human well-being (see for example Gaglio et al 2019 Ecological Modelling 403, 23-34; Peckl et al 2017 Science, 355(6332), eaai9214, and many others recent papers), how this index could be applied to mitigate negative impacts of climatic changes?
There are other papers describing similar composite index to compare with? Which are the main strengths and limitations of your method?
Some additional citations are needed to justify some sentences, for instance in lines 38, 39, 174.
The language is grammatically correct. Nonetheless, there are many redundant sentences and terms. I suggest an overall style check.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Re: Manuscript # Water-622869 entitled “Precipitation trend and alteration in Wei River Basin: Implication for water resources management in transitional zone between plain and loess plateau, China”.
We thank the reviewers for your positive evaluation, encouragement and valuable comments concerning our manuscript. We revised the manuscript thoroughly and carefully following the comments and suggestions.
In the responding result, your comments are cited in black. Our responses are in red. The parts of revision in our manuscript are marked in blue. The point-to-point responses to the reviewers and the assessor’s comments are given below.
Meanwhile, we thank the editors for your hard works on this manuscript.
Best regards
Hongbo Zhang
2019-10-24
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
It is an interesting study however still would benefit from some improvements:
In the introduction are missing references, e.g.
“From the fifth assessment report of 39 the intergovernmental panel on climate change published by the United Nations,”
Or
“The study 42 on global warming-induced precipitation variability by Karl and Knight showed …”
It is not appropriate to put references at the end of the sentence mainly.
Multiple references are of no use for a reader and can substitute even a kind of plagiarism, as sometimes authors are using them without proper studies of all references used. In the case, each reference should be justified by it is used and at least short assessment provided.
For books, reports, patents, thesis and dissertations the place and country where published should be provided.
Between the last word and a reference bracket should be a blank space, not as e.g.
“the global[10,11].”
km2 – not to make 2 in a superscript is a serious omission and it is against ISO standards.
Fig 1 and some otehrs: What is the origin, is it original figure from the authors?
Otehrwsie a reference and/or copyright transfer form should be provided.
For the text clarity would you refrain from using additional words, mostly meaningless filler words, which can be omitted or some archaic words see e.g. “respectively”, “thus”, “hence”, therefore”, “furthermore”, “thereby”, “basically,”, “meanwhile”,” wherein”, “herein”, “hitherto”, “Nonetheless”, “Perceivably” , “whereas”,etc. ?
Some text is hardly readable and difficult to understand as e.g.
“At Huashan station, the indicators with higher correlation with other indicators are PRCPTOT, 307 Flood Season, Rx30day, Rx7day, Rx5day, TRSummer and R99pTOT. Among all indexes, the paired indexes with correlation coefficient of 0.75+ 308 are the Flood Season-PRCPTOT, Flood Season-TRSummer, 309 Rx5day-Rx3day, Rx7day-Rx5day, Rx7day-Rx30day, R95pTOT-R10, R99pTOT-PRCPTOT. The paired 310 indexes with correlation coefficient between 0.6 and 0.75 are the PRCPTOT- TRSummer, PRCPTOT-SDII, 311 PRCPTOT-R10, PRCPTOT-R25, PRCPTOT-Rx30day, PRCPTOT-R95pTOT, TRWinter-RFeb, TRSpring-RMay, 312 TRSummer-Rx7day, TRSummer-Rx30day, TRAutumn-RSep, Flood Season-R10, Flood Season-R25, Flood 313 Season-Rx30day, Flood Season-R95pTOT, Flood Season-R99pTOT, SDII-Rx7day, R25-R99pTOT, R50- 314 Rx7day, Rx1day-CI, Rx3day-Rx7day, Rx3day-Rx30day, Rx5day-Rx3day, Rx5day-Rx30day, Rx30day315 R99pTOT, R50-Rx1day.”
It needs to be improved.
The conclusions are also very hard to be understood.
The novelty should explicitly and clearly presented.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Re: Manuscript # Water-622869 entitled “Precipitation trend and alteration in Wei River Basin: Implication for water resources management in transitional zone between plain and loess plateau, China”.
We thank the reviewers for your positive evaluation, encouragement and valuable comments concerning our manuscript. We revised the manuscript thoroughly and carefully following the comments and suggestions.
In the responding result, your comments are cited in black. Our responses are in red. The parts of revision in our manuscript are marked in blue. The point-to-point responses to the reviewers and the assessor’s comments are given below.
Meanwhile, we thank the editors for your hard works on this manuscript.
Best regards
Hongbo Zhang
2019-10-24
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
English Languages have some small misunderstanding parts.
The overall paper is ok and the subject interesting.
However, in the introduction you should make a small literature review about trend analysis in precipitation general and in the discussion some comparison between your results and results from other studies......
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Re: Manuscript # Water-622869 entitled “Precipitation trend and alteration in Wei River Basin: Implication for water resources management in transitional zone between plain and loess plateau, China”.
We thank the reviewers for your positive evaluation, encouragement and valuable comments concerning our manuscript. We revised the manuscript thoroughly and carefully following the comments and suggestions.
In the responding result, your comments are cited in black. Our responses are in red. The parts of revision in our manuscript are marked in blue. The point-to-point responses to the reviewers and the assessor’s comments are given below.
Meanwhile, we thank the editors for your hard works on this manuscript.
Best regards
Hongbo Zhang
2019-10-24
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Most issues were resolved successfully.
However the multiple references were declared by authors as eliminated, however it has not been the case.
Either the authors did not understand or made false statement, which could be considered as an unethical issues.
Would you please rectify this problem and resubmit ASAP?
Thank you
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been very considerably improved, however some improvements were declared, however I have not found them in the revised manuscript.
They are especially:
Multiple references are of no use for a reader and can substitute even a kind of plagiarism, as sometimes authors are using them without proper studies of all references used. In the case, each reference should be justified by it is used and at least short assessment provided.
For books, reports, patents, thesis and dissertations the place and country where published should be provided.
Also a clear reference/resp copyright permission has not been shown.
After those mainly formal, however substantial, issues are cleared to manuscript could be ready for the publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
