Quantification of Amu River Riverbank Erosion in Balkh Province of Afghanistan during 2004–2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this manuscript, the authors utilize framework synergizing multi-source information to quantify the Aum Riverbank erosion with the modelled river discharge in the Kaldar district, Balkh province of Afghanistan during 2004-2020, in order to quantification of Amu-River Riverbank erosion in the Banlkh province of Afghanistan during 2004-2020. Riverbank erosion based on three components: 1)river discharge; 2)river width; 3)erosion area. This is a point-of-interest. The significance of this approach is that it can retrieve significant information for planning and action such disaster. But there were still some doubts that need to be clarified:

(1)in your Keywords. "ERAS5" meaning is unclear.

(2)The some of literatures cited in the manuscript is older. 

(3)Line 27: "ERAS5" apperas for the first time, and its meaning needs to be explained. 

(4)Line 101: The figure3 is not clear.

(5)Line 258: Why should the text be highlighted in yellow? 

(6)I suggested that a flow chart be added to the "Materials and methods" section.

(7)I suggested that a section on "Discussion" be added, not "result and discussion".

All in all, The theme of the manuscript is very good. 

Author Response

We thank the Editor and the reviewers to provide us with an opportunity to revise our manuscript based on their suggestions. Reviewer-1 comments In this manuscript, the authors utilize framework synergizing multi-source information to quantify the Aum Riverbank erosion with the modelled river discharge in the Kaldar district, Balkh province of Afghanistan during 2004-2020, in order to quantification of Amu-River Riverbank erosion in the Banlkh province of Afghanistan during 2004-2020. Riverbank erosion based on three components: 1) river discharge; 2) river width; 3) erosion area. This is a point-of-interest. The significance of this approach is that it can retrieve significant information for planning and action such disaster. But there were still some doubts that need to be clarified: (1)in your Keywords. "ERAS5" meaning is unclear. Response: We thank the reviewer for their comment. This has been revised in the manuscript. (2)The some of literatures cited in the manuscript is older. Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have added more recent literature in the revised manuscript. (3)Line 27: "ERAS5" apperas for the first time, and its meaning needs to be explained. Response: We thank the reviewer for their comment. This has been corrected in the manuscript. (4)Line 101: The figure3 is not clear. Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. Figure 3 has been enlarged in the revised manuscript for improved visibility. (5)Line 258: Why should the text be highlighted in yellow? Response: This has been corrected in the revised manuscript. (6)I suggested that a flow chart be added to the "Materials and methods" section. Response: We thank the reviewer for their comment. A flow chart has been added as suggested as Figure 4 in the revised manuscript. (7)I suggested that a section on "Discussion" be added, not "result and discussion". Response: We thank the reviewer for their comment. A separate discussion section will interrupt the flow for the readers since the results and well connected in the sub-sections of Section 3. Hence, we prefer not to separate the results with the discussion. All in all, The theme of the manuscript is very good. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their consideration and appreciation of our work. We have at our best revised the manuscript as per the suggestions given by the reviewer.

Reviewer 2 Report

This work presents an analisys on riverbank erosion in the Amu-River, which is an important river in Afghanistan. The results and the methodology apllied seem fine. However, some aspects of the text are not very clear. The text also presents issues regarding format and english grammar.

I suggest the authors to provide corrections in the following topics:

1) Line 53 - 59: verify misspell and grammar

2) Table 1: What does the "S. no." mean? Is it just the line number? S. no. 3 appears twice.

3) Equation 1: explain what X is.

4) Figure 4: I suggest the authors to better explain the parameters in this figure. The presented values of monthly precipitation (several meters high).

5) Is the last image in Figure 9 correct? It has the same legend (2004 and 2010) them the first image.

6) Some citations along the text are highlighted in yellow. Please verify.

7) The last pages are not line numbered.

8) In the last paragraph of the results section (not line numbered) there is a citation of Figure 2b, which I believe to be incorrect. Please verify.

I also suggest an extensive revision in english grammar. Among other aspects, several commas are missing.

This article is not ready for publication in Land at this moment. If the authors provide these corrections, I believe this article may be accepted for publication in the future.

Misspelling and grammar issues detected. 

Author Response

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their consideration and appreciation of our work. We have at our best revised the manuscript as per the suggestions given by the reviewer. Reviewer-2 Comments This work presents an analisys on riverbank erosion in the Amu-River, which is an important river in Afghanistan. The results and the methodology apllied seem fine. However, some aspects of the text are not very clear. The text also presents issues regarding format and english grammar. I suggest the authors to provide corrections in the following topics: 1) Line 53 - 59: verify misspell and grammar Response: We have conducted a thorough check regarding issues of misspelling and grammar using the Grammarly software and as well checked it with a native speaker. 2) Table 1: What does the "S. no." mean? Is it just the line number? S. no. 3 appears twice. Response: It is the serial number listing the parameters. We have corrected the same in Table 1 in the revised manuscript. 3) Equation 1: explain what X is. Response: We thank the reviewer for their comment. This has been clarified in the revised manuscript. 4) Figure 4: I suggest the authors to better explain the parameters in this figure. The presented values of monthly precipitation (several meters high). Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have explained the parameters as suggested in the revised manuscript. We agree with the reviewer, the precipitation is high which may possibly be attributed to the extreme rainfall events in the region. The Afghanistan region, particularly the northern region has faced several extreme rainfall events due to its location in the cloudburst zones. Further, it is also possible that the ERA-5 TP data may have some outliers, which were although filtered during the multivariate modelling, but shown as it is in the plots. We have improved the scatterplots to try to avoid these. 5) Is the last image in Figure 9 correct? It has the same legend (2004 and 2010) them the first image. Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have updated the Figure in the revised manuscript. 6) Some citations along the text are highlighted in yellow. Please verify. Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. This has been corrected in the revised manuscript. 7) The last pages are not line numbered. Response: This has been corrected in the revised manuscript. 8) In the last paragraph of the results section (not line numbered) there is a citation of Figure 2b, which I believe to be incorrect. Please verify. Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out, it should have been 8b. This has been corrected in the revised manuscript. I also suggest an extensive revision in english grammar. Among other aspects, several commas are missing. Response: We have conducted a thorough check regarding issues of misspelling and grammar using the Grammarly software and as well checked it with a native speaker. This article is not ready for publication in Land at this moment. If the authors provide these corrections, I believe this article may be accepted for publication in the future. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their consideration. We have at our best revised the manuscript as per the suggestions given by the reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors performed all the corrections requested. I believe this article is ready for publication.