Relative and Combined Impacts of Climate and Land Use/Cover Change for the Streamflow Variability in the Baro River Basin (BRB)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript has an potential to make an interesting study related to impacts of climate and land use changes for the flow variability. However the obtained results for the study area (Baro River catchment, Ethiopia) have not been confronted by the Authors with the results from the similar studies. It would be rational to compare the predicted changes to assess uniqness or universality of the described results. Moreover, the Conclusion section requires modification since it  reminds rather a summary without any comments about the meaning of the predicted changes for the study area. Especially in the context of cacthment management, since the obtained results show decrease of the flows caused rather by the LULCC rather then climate changes.

As for the minor comments: please, verify the content of Tables 6 and 7.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Major comments

1.      Was the study conducted at the BRB or the Upper BRB? Refer to Figure 1

2.      Remove all full stops at the end of the title, subheadings, figure and table caption

3.      Authors should refer to tables and figures in the text with their caption numbers rather than positions such as below or above.

4.      The SWAT performance analysis should detail datasets (period) used for calibration and validation. The stated calibration (2001-2010) and validation (2011-2014) period in section 3.3 is different from the period in Figure 7.

5.      What was the reason for the variation in LULC interval from 10 years (1990 – 2000) to 20 years (2000 – 2020)?

6.      Authors should elaborate on the interval used for the future land use model in LCM and how it was validated. Using 1990 and 2020 for future LULC prediction means the model was not validated.

7.      The accuracy of the LULC maps should be presented.

8.      The method used to produce the spatial distribution of climate maps should be stated.

9.      CMhyd was developed for CMIP5, and there are challenges when using it for bias correction in CMIP6 datasets. Authors should elaborate on how CMhyd was adopted for the bias correction of their CMIP6 datasets.

10. At P14, what could account for the decrease in LULC 1990 under SSP2-4.5? It was not discussed, either.

11. Tables 6 and 7 are the same. One should be deleted.

12. Why is streamflow increasing from LULC 1990 to LULC 2050 under SSP2-4.5 contrary to baseline and SSP8-8.5 climate scenarios?

13. Figures 10 – 12 should be moved from the discussion and presented as results. Also, note that the current discussion section is a major repetition of the results, with few affirmations of findings from other research works. The discussion should inform the readers about the meaning of the results and why they are so.

14. Please check all units and correct them, especially the units for streamflow.

 

 

 

Minor comments

Remove full stop from Title

Abstract

Define BRB at first mention.

 

Materials and methods

P3: It is delimited by latitudes between   7° 24 to 9° 25’  and longitudes between  33° 20ʹ and 36° 20ʹ [2]… =>  It is delimited by latitudes between   7° 24 and  9° 25’ and longitudes between  33° 20ʹ and 36° 20ʹ [2]…

P3: Cite reference for “The basin exhibits a significant elevation gradient, ranging from less than 400m to over 3260m, resulting in diverse rainfall and temperature patterns across the basin.”

P6: check the symbol for coefficient of determination

P10: The study did not downscale climate models. Pls rephrase “Then, downscaling and bias correction of the models for the basin were performed using Climate Model data for hydrologic modeling (CMhyd).”

 

P12: Check unit of temperature in Figure 6

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend that the author(s) carefully read to check typos.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The following comments still need to be addressed by the authors.

Figure 1 still has the title as Upper_Baro River Basin. If the study area is the Baro River Basin and not the Upper part, then, author(s) have to edit the title in Figure 1.

The author(s) should state the statistical downscaling method or model used after the bias correction in CMhyd.

This statement must be revised or further explained. “Then the LULC for the 2050s was predicted using the LCM based on the 1990s and 2020s reference landuse map.” Projections are made on the validated model established with 1990 to 2000 LULC. How was the 2050 LULC projected from a different dataset of the 1990s and 2020s?

The author(s) did not state the reason for the variation in LULC interval from 10 years (1990 – 2000) to 20 years (2000 – 2020).

 

Figures 9 – 12 are not clear visually especially the texts in them.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx