Spatio-Temporal Changes of Terrestrial Water Storage in Five Provinces of Northwest China from 2002 to 2022 and Their Driving Factors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article discusses the temporal and spatial variation of terrestrial water storage (TWS) in the five northwestern provinces of China and assesses the impact of various driving factors on changes in TWS. However, there are numerous issues throughout the manuscript. A thorough revision is recommended before re-submission.

The following are the suggestions:

1. It is recommended to rewrite the introduction section. The current version should highlight existing research related to the distribution of terrestrial water storage (TWS) in the five northwestern provinces, and emphasize the innovative aspects and contributions of the current study.
2. In Section 2.3, the processing of GRACE satellite data is described, including the use of ARMA models, Sen’s Slope method, and Mann-Kendall trend tests to handle missing data. It is suggested to add more details, such as how the ARMA model fills the data gaps and what potential impact this could have on the results.
3. The paper contains some language and sentence structure issues. It is recommended to conduct a thorough language check and revise the text, as well as reorganize the structure of the paper for better clarity.
4. It is advised to provide a more detailed description of the flowchart in Figure 2 and to improve the design and aesthetics of the flowchart.
5. It is suggested that the experimental results of this paper should be quantitatively analyzed from multiple angles and different evaluation indexes, so as to increase the scientificity and rationality of the experimental results.
6. The figures and tables in the paper effectively illustrate the temporal and spatial variations of TWS. However, the titles and legends of the figures could be improved for better clarity. For instance, adding more details about spatial distribution or clearly indicating the regions with significant impact would help readers better understand the conclusions behind the figures.
7. The paper mainly uses existing mature models and methods for the research, which are comprehensive, but the study does not emphasize its innovative aspects. It is recommended to focus on highlighting the innovations of the study and incorporate novel research methods to showcase the originality of the research.

Author Response

Dear professor, Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found this manuscript very interesting and well written. The introduction was very detailed and referenced, but the goals of the work (line 106) were too general and need to be clearly stated. The methods section were also extremely detailed but the source of the data used in Figure 7 was not given. I feel the authors need to be more attentive to telling the readers the source of all data.
I feel the authors are using far too many local references and need to have more citations from the international scientific community. Finally, the conclusion final paragraph is very clear about what they did not include in the paper organization. This honesty opens the authors to criticism for not giving more attention to the sources of data and their value. This must be addressed further before publication.

Author Response

Dear Professor, Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my comments have been addressed. Thanks for the responses.