Review Reports
- Shuai Zhong1,2,3,4,*,
- Yidong Zhu1,2 and
- Jianan Zhao1,2
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors did a good work from an experimental point of view, and I recommend the article for publication after some minor revisions.
More specific:
L1: Is the work an article or a review?
L27: Use only keywords from the title. You need to change them.
L112: Figure 1 looks good, but some information is missing, e.g., names of different countries and major rivers (in English).
L177: Number reference missing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The presented article has been prepared at a high substantive and scientific level, based on a well-selected set of source materials.
The assumed research goal was basically achieved.
The results are well presented in 4 figures. However, fig. 3 is hardly legible.
The conclusions are too general.
They should answer three questions posed by the authors at the beginning of the article (lines 136-133). Then they will correspond well with the title and content of the entire article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx