Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript water-846650 reports an interesting and well carried out study about the relationship between the urban development and the hydrologic cycle.

The manuscript reports the results of a well-executed study and the data are very interesting. However, the text presents an important problem. In fact, the manuscript has grammar and language issues, which need to be addressed. Extensive editing of English language and style are required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors dealt with the hydrological variation due to the urban development . This theme is very important because the urbanization is key impact to change the hydorological circulation in a basin. Therefore, the issue tackled by the authors is relevant to Water Journal. However, I think that the author should provide the more scientific background for publication. Please, see the attached comment file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors revised the first version of this article and some questions from me were replied well. However, I still have a question about the originality of methodologies. The effect of urbanization is very complex. However, the authors used only one method (Mann-Kendall test). I still think that the more scientific tools (eg. rainfall-runoff model) must be performed to identify the effect of the urbanization in this river. I think that data analysis is the only first step to identify the relationship between urbanization and hydrological variation.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The recommendation and comments in review process were revised reasonably. So, I think that the article can be published in this present form.