A Paleo Perspective of Alabama and Florida (USA) Interstate Streamflow
, Glenn Tootle 1, Leigh Terry 1, Emily Elliott 2, Joni Corbin 1, Grant L. Harley 3, Jonghun Kam 4, Sahar Sadeghi 1 and Matthew Therrell 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript is out of format of an academic writing. Then reviewer has to reject it.
There is no any conclusion section!!! Authors can add conclusion for their future submissions.
This works is full of self-citations. Remove all the self-cations. Also, check MDPI policy regarding self citations.
Figures 2 and 3 must be discussed.
Results is not enough! More result is required.
Introduction is very poor (it seems a report!). Please read journal’s structure, as there is author guideline.
Author Response
Water 1103329 Revision 1 Response to Reviewer 1 comments
This manuscript is out of format of an academic writing. Then reviewer has to reject it.
Response 1. We are not clear on the reviewer’s request. We believe the manuscript meets Water guidelines.
There is no any conclusion section!!! Authors can add conclusion for their future submissions.
Response 2. We chose not to offer a Conclusions section, which is optional in Water.
This works is full of self-citations. Remove all the self-cations. Also, check MDPI policy regarding self citations.
Response 3. Although we do not feel that the instances of self citation are excessive (or contrary to Water policy) given that three of the authors are mid to late career and have published on this topic. We did remove three self citations (3, 32, 35) that we felt were useful but not required.
Figures 2 and 3 must be discussed
Response 4. We discuss the information shown in Figures 2 and 3 from roughly line 213 through 284. We are unclear what specific discussion is lacking.
Results is not enough! More result is required.
Response 5. Perhaps if the reviewer could be more specific we would be able to address their concern.
Introduction is very poor (it seems a report!). Please read journal’s structure, as there is author guideline.
Response 6. We have attempted to improve the Introduction section, though not knowing the reviewer’s specific suggestion are unable to reply to it thoroughly.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
See attached comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Water 1103329 Revision 1 Response to Reviewer 2 comments
The paper I found quite interesting. However, my main concern is regarding the statistical analyses, especially how was dealt with multiple comparisons (correlation analyses) in the first step (148 TRCs, looking for positive and significant values) that might result in observed false significant correlation due to chance. Detailed comments are provided below.
Response to point 1. We thank the reviewer for their thoughtful reading of the manuscript and agree that it is imperative that the statistical analyses are appropriate and clearly presented. We respond to specific issues below.
Keywords
In my opinion some keywords are not relevant as you do not study them, e.g. El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), subtropical high, Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)
Response to point 2. We agree that these keywords are not indicative of the content of the manuscript and have changed the text accordingly.
Methods
Lines 123-125 The overlapping time periods for M-O streamflow and all 148 TRCs (t and t+1) were correlated using Minitab, and the TRCs with positive, significant R. You did to many correlations without using any corrections I would suggest to use a correction method to counteract the problem of multiple comparisons e.g. Bonferroni correction.
Response to point 3 The authors investigated the suggestion of the reviewer in evaluating the Bonferroni correction. We identified two options. First, you would simply divide the alpha rate (p-value) by the number of statistical analysis. For example, we used 95% as our threshold significance value, 1 – 0.95 = 0.05, and, we would simply divide 0.05 by the number of statistical tests and use this value as our new threshold. Thus, for the above, if we had five statistical tests, our new threshold value would be 0.05 / 5 or 0.01, thus, the Bonferroni correction would increase our threshold from 95% to 99%. The second option is to multiply the actual p-value determined times the number of statistical tests and if this value is greater than our established threshold value of 0.05, we would reject the result as being significant. The challenge in the current research in applying a correction is the methods used have been consistently used in Dendrohydrology (see references 5, 6, 13, 21, 27, 28, 33). The authors believe the use of both stability analysis and overall correlation (without correction) provides the necessary rigor in determining which tree-ring chronologies can be considered in the regression analysis. As noted, when including current year and one-year forward (+1) tree-ring chronologies, 148 possible tree-ring chronologies were evaluated (pre-screened) applying both stability and correlation. As displayed in Table 3, after the pre-screening and regression (stepwise forward-backward) was applied, only two or three (of 148 possibilities) are retained. Thus, we believe the widely accepted methods proposed and rigor as displayed are adequate in the current manuscript.
To further address this issue however, we also calculated the R2 adjusted value for each reconstruction and include these values in a new column in Table 3 (also see note on line 256).
Results
Lines 206-207 Provide explanations for codes in the notes e.g. IOL1= Iola Lake +1; what does +1 mean?
Response to point 4. We have added a Note at line 208 (“+1” = tree ring growth in the following year;). This is indicated in original manuscript lines 115-116 in Methods section.
Line 208 R(p) = R2 (predicted) is that correct? R2(p) is mentioned in the method section?
Response to point 5. Yes. We have changed to “R2(p) = R2 (predicted)”
Line 230 Figure 2. I would suggest to use same scale for all three figures.
Response to point 6. We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and have modified the figures accordingly. Figure panels now share the same y-axis values and we have added a figure in Appendix 1 showing all three panels along the same x-axis. We believe this is a good way to address this issue.
Line 239 Figure 3. I would suggest to use same scale for all three figures
Response to point 7. See point 6.
Discussion
You are discussing streamflow with the amount of water and natural factors that might influence it. However, what about direct anthropogenic effects e.g. water abstraction? Is it relevant? It might influence water amount. Please include it in the discussion.
Response to point 8. We agree with the Reviewer and have provided some clarifying text on this point lines 333-336 in the Discussion.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article falls within the aims and scope of The Journal. The topic of the paper is up-to-date. However, some corrections should be implemented:
- the gap in scientific knowledge is not properly indicated;
- the paper does not explain clearly the new science versus current knowledge;
- the authors should describe the principles of dendrochronological reconstruction of stremaflow;
- the authors should carefully proofread and edit the manuscript - i.e. lack of superscripts.
- the figures could be improved - more readable.
Author Response
Water 1103329 Revision 1 Response to Reviewer 3 comments
the gap in scientific knowledge is not properly indicated;
Response to point 1. We are unclear in specifically what the reviewer is referring to, but we believe that we do cover this issue in the Introduction and Discussion
the paper does not explain clearly the new science versus current knowledge;
Response to point 2. Again perhaps if the Reviewer had offered more specific direction we would have responded to this comment more effectively.
the authors should describe the principles of dendrochronological reconstruction of stremaflow;
Response to point 3. Although we certainly could go into more detail on the principles of streamflow reconstruction from tree rings, this has been extensively covered in the literature to which we provide ample reference (e.g., citations 6,-8, 11, 12, 14- 19, 22, 24, 25, 26, 76)
the authors should carefully proofread and edit the manuscript - i.e. lack of superscripts.
Response to point 4. We believe we have corrected these typos. Lines 201, 240, 258. See also Point 5 Rev. 2.
the figures could be improved - more readable.
Response to point 5. We have made changes to Figures 2 and 3. See Also Points 6,7 Rev. 2.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewer gave to author an opportunity for improving manuscript, but unfortunately authors did not fix previous comments. This manuscript cannot be acceptable in this high-quality journal because of below reasons:
- This manuscript is full of self-citations, according to the publisher policy this behavior is not allowed for a high-quality journal like Water (reviewer mentioned it in previous version but authors have ignored it).
- This manuscript as and “Article” is required conclusion section, but author did not provide any conclusion. The conclusion of this study is not clear for reader (reviewer mentioned it in previous version but authors have ignored it).
- This manuscript is out of format of an academic writing text.
Author Response
Water 1103329 Revision 2 Response to Reviewer 1 comments
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Reviewer gave to author an opportunity for improving manuscript, but unfortunately authors did not fix previous comments. This manuscript cannot be acceptable in this high-quality journal because of below reasons:
- This manuscript is full of self-citations, according to the publisher policy this behavior is not allowed for a high-quality journal like Water (reviewer mentioned it in previous version but authors have ignored it).
Response 1. As noted in our first response we removed three self-citations. The citations we used are the most relevant we are aware of on this topic. Had the reviewer provided us with more relevant citations we would have gladly used them.
- This manuscript as and “Article” is required conclusion section, but author did not provide any conclusion. The conclusion of this study is not clear for reader (reviewer mentioned it in previous version but authors have ignored it).
Response 2. We added a Conclusions section.
- This manuscript is out of format of an academic writing text.
Response 3. We are unclear as to what the reviewer specifically refers.
Reviewer 2 Report
I understand you that used statistical approach is widespread in the Dendrohydrology, but from statistical point of view is "not correct". Nevertheless, as I understand your situation, I will not interfere as there is anyway no consistency regarding the issue. I hope you will consider this in your future work.
Author Response
Water 1103329 Revision 2 Response to Reviewer 2 comments
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I understand you that used statistical approach is widespread in the Dendrohydrology, but from statistical point of view is "not correct". Nevertheless, as I understand your situation, I will not interfere as there is anyway no consistency regarding the issue. I hope you will consider this in your future work.
Response to point 1. We again appreciate the reviewer’s time and effort. Although apparently no change is needed, we regret that we may not have met the reviewer’s expectations regarding our response to their previous concerns. We made a good faith attempt to do so.
