An Ensemble Flow Forecast Method Based on Autoregressive Model and Hydrological Uncertainty Processer

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a well-written original research article, in which a Bayesian ensemble forecast method is proposed considering uncertainty of hydrological models and precipitation. The paper deals with an interesting topic. The presentation and length are satisfactory and informative. The introduction provides sufficient background and include all relevant references. Ιt is worthy of publication, however a minor improvement is needed. The comments can be summarized, as follows:

• In Abstract, the sentence in Lines 14-19 is tοο long and I would recommend shorting its length, in order to become more understood.
• In Lines 135-143 there is not the same text alignment as in whole text.
• I would prefer each table to be in the same page and not to be divided.
• In Line 282 the sentence ‘’ And use the corrected GEFS data as input to drive Xin’an Jiang model, the simulation precision of Xin’an Jiang model effectively improved.’’, should be rephrased at the beginning in order to be more understood.

Author Response

Dear professor,

Greetings.

We are writing to answer the questions that you have proposed in this paper. Thank you very much for your time and insightful suggestions. All the comments and suggestions are valuable. We think it’s very necessary to improve these deficiencies.

Point 1: In Abstract, the sentence in Lines 14-19 is tοο long and I would recommend shorting its length, in order to become more understood.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your advice and well-meaning reminder. As you say in this comment, we have thoroughly revised the Abstract section. We have divided the sentence you mentioned in this comment into several short sentences and described the train of thought of this article step by step. Please review it.

Point 2: In Lines 135-143 there is not the same text alignment as in whole text.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your advice and well-meaning reminder. As you say in this comment, we have checked and improved the text format of the whole paper. Please review it.

Point 3: I would prefer each table to be in the same page and not to be divided.

Response 3: Thank you very much for your advice and well-meaning reminder. As you say in this comment, we have checked the text format of the whole paper. But according to MDPI's text format requirements, tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited. In order to facilitate your review, we have put all the tables together and attached them to the end of this document. We apologize again for the text format. Please see the attachment and review it.

Point 4: In Line 282 the sentence ‘’ And use the corrected GEFS data as input to drive Xin’an Jiang model, the simulation precision of Xin’an Jiang model effectively improved.’’, should be rephrased at the beginning in order to be more understood.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your advice and well-meaning reminder. As you say in this comment, we have carefully revised the sentence in the article. Please review it.

All of these have been modified as your suggestions.

Thank you very much for your insightful comments and construction suggestions. We think these comments and suggestions improved the manuscript greatly.

Best regards to you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have produced an interesting paper on a topic of concern to many working in the flood prediction field.  While the paper is difficult to read, the usage of English results in a clear paper.  The difficulty in reading arises from the density of information in the paper and the need to read it a number of times to extract the information.

Given the extent of the reservoir behind the TGR, I wonder if the inflows being considered are really flood flows or are wet-season flows; the period for some of these floods is many months.  I would be inclined to replace "Flood" with "Flow" in the title.  This would not change the content, nor would it mean the first paragraph in the introduction should be changed; the purpose is to provide a reader with a better indication of the content.

Author Response

Dear professor,

Greetings.

We are writing to answer the questions that you have proposed in this paper. Thank you very much for your time and insightful suggestions. All the comments and suggestions are valuable. We think it’s very necessary to improve these deficiencies.

Point 1: Given the extent of the reservoir behind the TGR, I wonder if the inflows being considered are really flood flows or are wet-season flows; the period for some of these floods is many months.  I would be inclined to replace "Flood" with "Flow" in the title. This would not change the content, nor would it mean the first paragraph in the introduction should be changed; the purpose is to provide a reader with a better indication of the content.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your advice and well-meaning reminder. We are very sorry for not clearly presenting and explaining the meaning of inflows being considered in the article. The inflows being considered are wet-season flows and the wet-season refers to the period from June to September. We have modified the title of the article and the relevant information in the article. We apologize again for not expressing our meaning clearly. Please review it.

All of these have been modified as your suggestions.

Thank you very much for your insightful comments and construction suggestions. We think these comments and suggestions improved the manuscript greatly.

Best regards to you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx