Analysis of Evolutionary Characteristics and Prediction of Annual Runoff in Qianping Reservoir

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. A few sentences should be added to the last paragraph of the summary section to provide a clearer conclusion for the readers to understand.
2- Introduction is well written. The sources are relevant to the subject. At the same time, the purpose of the study is given here.
3- The material and method section is very well written.
4- The findings section is written like a report, and more findings such as using a new method and comparing are tried to be given. No comparison with any literature is made. Only 3 literature information is given in the findings and discussion section. Most of all literatures are given in the introduction section. This should be corrected. The discussion section should be rewritten by discussing the literatures together.
5. The findings obtained in the results section are summarized, they are sufficient.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

attached 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

To address the intensified non-stationarity of annual runoff, multiple advanced methods are integrated with various climatic drivers to analyze and predict the evolution characteristics of the annual runoff in the Qianping (QP) Reservoir. Some valuable conclusions were conducted and provided data support for dynamic reservoir operation.

Overall, the manuscript is a data-based study with conventional research methods. Also, the manuscript falls short in the depth of data analysis and has certain deficiencies in writing.

The following are some detailed comments and suggestions:

1）Page 2, paragraph 2: The entire paragraph is one long, complex sentence with multiple semicolon-separated parts, making it hard for readers to grasp the key points and causing mental fatigue and confusion. Despite covering various methods, studies, and research gaps, the lack of clear logical connections (e.g., transitions, progression, cause - and - effect) and appropriate connecting words makes the content feel disjointed and haphazard.

2）Page 2, paragraph 2: The literature review is not a list of references.

3）Page 2, paragraph 3–Page 3, paragraph 1: The methods should only be briefly mentioned in this section, with a detailed description reserved for the Materials and Methods section.

4）Page 3: The Data Description must specify the river studied, the study area's size, its relationship to Luoyang City, the hydrological monitoring location, the responsible party for monitoring, and the quality of hydrological data.

5）The explanations following the formulas do not meet the requirements for the paper.

6）The captions for Figure 8 should provide detailed descriptions of each sub - figure.

7）Page 14: The name of Figure 11 is incorrect.

8）Page 14: The differences between the LSTM-RF model results and those of the other three models should be clearly indicated.

9）A more detailed analysis of the model predictions is needed, rather than just discussing trends.

10）The conclusion is not concise and clear.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

“Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As a result of my review, it is seen that the corrections I previously mentioned to the authors have been made. Therefore, the article is in acceptable form as it is.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The manuscript has been sufficiently improved.