Estimates of Daily Evapotranspiration in the Source Region of the Yellow River Combining Visible/Near-Infrared and Microwave Remote Sensing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of “Estimates of Daily evapotranspiration in the Source Region of the Yellow River Combining Visible/Near-Infrared and Microwave Remote Sensing” by Rong Liu et al.
In this the manuscript, the authors combined with the data of visible/near-infrared and microwave observation from the Fengyun series of meteorological satellites to derive the surface evapotranspiration. To do this, the spatial and diurnal variations of surface energy fluxes over the northern Tibetan Plateau were estimated by using the Surface Energy Balance System algorithm with combining the visible/near-infrared and microwave remote sensing, and then, the estimates were validated against the ground observations from the Source Region of the Yellow River Alpine Climate Stations. I think the research is novel in its application of remote sensing over high mountain regions. The subject matter of this manuscript is certainly relevant, provides some interesting results. I would like to recommend it for publication in Remote Sensing after the revision of following comments.
Specific comments:
1) Many descriptions related to the figures can be moved to the figure captions. Some figures need to improve the quality, and some captions need to add more description.
2) The units for some variables in the text are missing and needed to add.
3) Why use “soil ground flux”, rather than “ground heat flux” in the surface energy budget? Furthermore, for L 149-150, I do not get the point and please consider to re-write it.
4) L153-267: The authors described the sensible heat flux calculation, how about latent heat flux?
5) Some grammar issues need to correct.
Minor comments (“>>” means “revised to”):
L23: What does “effective” mean?
L25: evapotranspiration >> evapotranspiration (ET)
L28: cumulated >> cumulating
shows regional >> showed the regional
L44: but improves >> with improvement of
L47-49: I suggest to re-write this sentence.
L65: cloud cover >> cloud cover conditions
L70: fog >> fogs
the surface flux under cloud cover >> the surface fluxes under the cloud cover conditions
L86: Net radiation under clear sky >> Net radiation under clear sky conditions
L89: Delete “cloud total amount”
L102: Ts is the surface temperature >> Ts is the surface skin temperature
L160-161: Suggest to change “Zom is the dynamic transfer roughness, Zoh is the thermodynamic roughness.” to “Zom and Zoh denote momentum and thermal roughness lengths, respectively.”
L164: Möhnhoff length >> Obukhov length
Karl Mann constant >> von Kármán constant
L166: LAI >> Leaf Area Index (LAI)
L175-176: Suggest to change G to G0 in Eq. (12), in order to be consistent to Eq. (8).
G is the sensible heat flux >> G0 is the ground heat flux
L215: relevant literature >> the relevant literatures
L219: eliminate >> eliminated
L282: Suggest to change “move” to develop.
L295: the latent heat flux retrieval results >> the retrieved latent heat fluxes
L298 “spatially interpolated”: interpolated to what grid?
L361: under typical clear sky >> under the typical clear sky conditions
L375: closed >> closure?
L393: “correcting”? Do you mean “collecting”.
L398: this hardly >> which is hardly
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1:
We thank the reviewer for the constructive comments and suggestions as well as the careful reading. As a result, we believe that the quality of the revised version has been improved significantly. In the paragraphs that follow, we include point-to-point responses (the original comments are in black, and our responses are in blue).
Manuscript Number: Remote Sensing- 1025392
Title: Estimates of Daily evapotranspiration in the Source Region of the Yellow River Combining Visible/Near-Infrared and Microwave Remote Sensing
Authors: Rong LIU, et al.
Specific comments:
1) Many descriptions related to the figures can be moved to the figure captions. Some figures need to improve the quality, and some captions need to add more description.
Response: Thank the reviewer for questioning this issue. We look back the figure caption again, and make clarifications of these figures in the revised manuscript. Besides, some figures have been modified into the proper formats.
2) The units for some variables in the text are missing and needed to add.
Response: We fully agree with the reviewer’s opinion here. These units are added in the revised manuscript.
3) Why use “soil ground flux”, rather than “ground heat flux” in the surface energy budget? Furthermore, for L 149-150, I do not get the point and please consider to re-write it.
Response: Sorry for this confusion. Here soil ground flux means the flux from ground without vegetation. The L 149-150 has been deleted after consideration.
4) L153-267: The authors described the sensible heat flux calculation, how about latent heat flux?
Response: Sorry for this confusion. The latent heat flux can be obtained by Evaporation fraction in 2.4 sections(L177-186).
5) Some grammar issues need to correct.
Response: We fully agree with the reviewer’s opinion here. Based on the comments and requests, the previous manuscript has been extensively modified and carefully revised to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors.
Minor comments (“>>” means “revised to”):
L23: What does “effective” mean?
Response: The effective energy means that energy can be used for land-atmosphere interactions.
L25: evapotranspiration >> evapotranspiration (ET)
Response: This has been adjusted in the new version.
L28: cumulated >> cumulating; shows regional >> showed the regional
Response: This has been adjusted in the new version.
L44: but improves >> with improvement of
Response: This has been corrected in the manuscript.
L47-49: I suggest to re-write this sentence.
Response: This has been rewritten in the manuscript.
L65: cloud cover >> cloud cover conditions
Response: This has been rewritten in the manuscript.
L70: fog >> fogs; the surface flux under cloud cover >> the surface fluxes under the cloud cover conditions
Response: These have been rewritten in the manuscript.
L86: Net radiation under clear sky >> Net radiation under clear sky conditions
Response: This has been rewritten in the manuscript.
L89: Delete “cloud total amount”
Response: This has been deleted.
L102: Ts is the surface temperature >> Ts is the surface skin temperature
Response: This has been rewritten in the manuscript.
L160-161: Suggest to change “Zom is the dynamic transfer roughness, Zoh is the thermodynamic roughness.” to “Zom and Zoh denote momentum and thermal roughness lengths, respectively.”
Response: This has been rewritten in the manuscript.
L164: Möhnhoff length >> Obukhov length; Karl Mann constant >> von Kármán constant
Response: These have been adjusted in the manuscript.
L166: LAI >> Leaf Area Index (LAI)
Response: This has been rewritten in the manuscript.
L175-176: Suggest to change G to G0 in Eq. (12), in order to be consistent to Eq. (8).
G is the sensible heat flux >> G0 is the ground heat flux
Response: These have been adjusted in the manuscript.
L215: relevant literature >> the relevant literatures
Response: This has been added into the manuscript.
L219: eliminate >> eliminated
Response: This has been rewritten in the manuscript.
L282: Suggest to change “move” to develop.
Response: This has been rewritten in the manuscript.
L295: the latent heat flux retrieval results >> the retrieved latent heat fluxes
Response: This has been rewritten in the manuscript.
L298 “spatially interpolated”: interpolated to what grid?
Response: 1.25km.
L361: under typical clear sky >> under the typical clear sky conditions
Response: This has been rewritten in the manuscript.
L375: closed >> closure?
Response: This has been rewritten in the manuscript.
L393: “correcting”? Do you mean “collecting”.
Response: Sorry for these clerical errors. We corrected this word in the revised manuscript.
L398: this hardly >> which is hardly
Response: This has been rewritten in the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I decided to accept the paper in the present form, knowing how complicated is the subject, or could be, when going into specific questions or details.
However, the paper is tidy, well done, deals with important problems, and I did not find factual errors.
Best regards,
Reviewer
Author Response
We really appreciate the positive comments for our work as well as the careful reading.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
