A Geospatial Approach for Analysis of Drought Impacts on Vegetation Cover and Land Surface Temperature in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors describe the spatiotemporal drought patterns in the Kurdistan region of Iraq with the help of remote sensing (RS) and Geographical Information Systems (GIS).

I think that the use of GIS and remote sensing (RS) is quite interesting for the analysis of the drought patterns and the effects on the vegetation. There is literature about these studies in Europe, but I think in arid or semi-arid zones these studies are more interesting because the problem is more relevant. Since there are several works in the literature I said that novelty is average, but the work is well done, the manuscript is well written despite several typo mistakes and the conclusions are consistent with the argument presented.

There are too many images in Figure 4, I don't read properly the coordinates, so maybe in the paper the authors should put less figures, and the other ones in the supporting info.

The paper deserves to be published, however I suggest some minor changes:

-Abstract. Line 14 drought (remove the final s), it should be drought episodes with drought that acts as adjective. In the same line you should define the acronym KRI. The explanation is given later, but it is better to define it earlier.

-Abstract. Line 23. I would change in "assess variability of drought indices"

-Introduction. Line 36. I would change in "sufferings for the society and the environment"

-Introduction. Line 54. Predominantly instead of predominatingly

-Introduction. Line 68. Severe droughts (add s)

-Introduction. Line 78. Furthermore a severe drought (add a)

-Introduction. Line 121. Reduce the s. Earth's surface energy balance.

-Introduction. Line 127 and 129. Uniform British English and American English, analyse or analize.

-Materials and Methods. Page 5. I am not sure the alignment of the text in the page is correct.

-Materials and Methods. Line 226 "Figure 3" instead of Fig3. 

-Materials and Methods. Line 236 and 239. What is ster? Is it srad?

-Materials and Methods. Line 241 10^-2 (-2 as superscript), Line 242 -34 as superscript, -23 as superscript.

-Materials and Methods. Line 255 "using this test: first (f not capital letter). Line 275-276: insert space for S > 0  instead of forS. The number of the equation for Zs is 8 and not 1. Line 279 Test statistic Z. Equation 11 and 12, check the alignment.

-Results. Line 342 remove space in the bracket (54%). Line 360, maybe it is "< 0.2"

-Results. Line 386 Figure 3. Line 392 and 394: °C, correct the symbol of degrees with the circle as superscript. Line 402 and 403 km2, the 2 is superscript.

-Results. Line 427. Add space between p< 0.01 and p<0.05

-Results. Line 466. On the contrary without capital letter

-Results. Line 524. R2, 2 is superscript.

-Results. Line 549 degrees of distribution is better. Line 566-567 climatic variable influences. Line 590 drought vicissitudes. Line 635 ° superscript. Line 687 the multiple regression is R and add a space between Table 7 and 8.

-Conclusions. Line 739 km2, 2 as superscript. Line 741 regression model parameters.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very grateful for your valuable suggestions, which have given us quite valuable insight on how to further improve our manuscript for acceptance for publication in the esteemed journal (Journal of Water).

Kindly, we have revised the manuscript. All the revised sentences, figures, tables, words, and numbers are colored by a yellow background. The revisions were done based on your precious comments and suggestions.

We are now pleased to submit the revised manuscript along with the detailed responses below.

Your reconsiderations are highly appreciated.

Thank you very much again.

Yours sincerely,

Heman A. Gaznayee

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments

• What is the novelty/uniqueness of this study?
• The introduction section is a bit lengthy. Reduce it.
• The elevation range mentioned in line 146 and Fig. 1(c) does not match.
• Why the downloaded Landsat images were georeferenced? Why DN values were converted to reflectance? The georeferenced reflectance images are available to be downloaded. 
• The Landsat images are already having a UTM projection with the WGS84 datum. How did you add projection to these images that too UTM and WGS84?
• Line 207 and 214: The same statement is mentioned twice.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very grateful for your valuable suggestions, which have given us quite valuable insight on how to further improve our manuscript for acceptance for publication in the esteemed journal (Journal of Water).

Kindly, we have revised the manuscript. All the revised sentences, figures, tables, words, and numbers are colored by a yellow background. The revisions were done based on your precious comments and suggestions.

We are now pleased to submit the revised manuscript along with the detailed responses below.

Your reconsiderations are highly appreciated.

Thank you very much again.

Yours sincerely,

Heman A. Gaznayee

Author Response File: Author Response.docx