Next Article in Journal
Hydroenergy Harvesting Assessment: The Case Study of Alviela River
Previous Article in Journal
Comprehensive Understanding the Disaster-Causing Mechanism, Governance Dilemma and Targeted Countermeasures of Urban Pluvial Flooding in China
Article
Peer-Review Record

Evaluation of FAO-56 Procedures for Estimating Reference Evapotranspiration Using Missing Climatic Data for a Brazilian Tropical Savanna

Water 2021, 13(13), 1763; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13131763
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2021, 13(13), 1763; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13131763
Received: 22 May 2021 / Revised: 14 June 2021 / Accepted: 20 June 2021 / Published: 26 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Biodiversity and Functionality of Aquatic Ecosystems)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

The manuscript addresses the limitation of the data and its impact on water resource management. ET is a very important component of water balance and needs a lot of attention. I found your study very interesting, however, I have some questions/suggestions/feedback. 

I was curious why the response for December, Jan, Feb at times is different when performance was checked with RMSE and MBE? 

Besides the dry and wet season, it would be great to see how the variation across quarters. 

I am very intrigued with Figure 2. It is surprising to see the variation of soil and air temperature. Usually, the soil temperature is lower than the air temperature. In your study, the data shows a different trend. Is it a regional-specific observation? If so, it would be good to add a few stations (at least 3 stations)

It would be good to see VPD and Windspeed on two different graphs rather than the same graph on two y-axes. 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

After thoroughly going through the revised manuscript, the authors have addressed all of the comments and in doing so they have improved the quality of the manuscript.  The authors have addressed all previous concerns expressed by the reviewers and in the process have improved the work, confirmed the validity of their findings, and gained confidence in their introduction, methods, results, and conclusions. I would like to congratulate the authors for their interesting and well-executed work and I recommend this manuscript for publication in Water (MDPI) in its current form.

Reviewer 2 Report

Great work with revisions

Back to TopTop