Dynamic Changes of Terrestrial Water Cycle Components over Central Asia in the Last Two Decades from 2003 to 2020
, Xi Chen 1,2,3,*, Min Mao 3,5, Zhuo Zhang 1,2,3, Hao Zhang 1,2,3 and Meijun Wang 3,5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear All,
I have put the comments on the attached file.
Best wishes
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: The Introduction section should be improved. Here are some papers you can use them:
- a) Geophysical and Remote Sensing Assessment of Chad’s Groundwater Resources
- b) Groundwater Storage Changes: Present Status from GRACE Observations. Surv. Geophys. 2016, 37, 397–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712‐015‐9332‐4.
Response 1: Thanks for this suggestion. The introduction is rewriting in the revised manuscript, and the new papers are added.
Point 2: Please clarify the objectives of the study work
Response 2: These objectives of our study are (1) to explore the temporal and spatial variations of the terrestrial water cycle and its components comprehensively; (2) to quantify the relationships between the climate factors and the terrestrial water cycle, which have been clarified in the revised manuscript.
Point 3: Please add a section about the hydro-geology and aquifers of the study area
Response 3: Added in the revised manuscript.
Point 4: Please improve the readability of this section.
Response 4: Improved.
Point 5: Please explain that section in more details.
Response 5: Rewrote in this revised manuscript.
Point 6: Please rewrite this section.
Response 6: Rewrote in this revised manuscript.
Point 7: Please explain which grace data are you used.
Response 7: Explained.
Point 8: Is it possible to calculate the average GWSA from using the three GRACE mascon solutions?
Response 8: According to the pervious study (Hu et al., 2021), there is no large difference among the three GRACE mascon datasets. In this study, we use the CSR-Mascon.
Point 9: Please improve this figure.
Response 9: Improved.
Point 10: Is there a figure to show the relation between the GWSA estimated from satellite data and the depletion from the boreholes.
Response 10: It is good suggestion. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to obtain the observed record because of the serious strict data policy of the five states in CA. If more datasets are available in future, we will prove the figure.
Point 11: This section needs to be revised.
Response 11: Revised.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is written in a messy format and needs to be carefully revised.
1、The chart format numbering is confused and there are many errors. Such as:
Line 183：（Figures 34 and 4C）,Figure34?
Line 193：Figure 4b is the graph for SWE not for TMP; it should be (Figure 3b)?
Line 202：Figure 4c? but Figure 4 only has figures a and b.
Line 248：Figure 5b is the data graph for SM, not SWE.
Line 249：Figure 6 is the graph for SWE, not SM.
Line 407：Table 1 should be Table 2.
Clarify the figures in Line 255-260, Line 270-276, Line 301-399 and so on.
2、The chart should be placed closest to where it first appeared in the text;
3、Line 225, How to get the percentage of 90%？
4、Line 405：How to consider the different spatial resolution of the data in Table 1 in the data processing?
5、Line 544-545：the string ‘k’ in k=0.2°C/10a and k=-0.47mm/a easily cause confusion.
Author Response
Point 1: The chart format numbering is confused and there are many errors. Such as:
Line 183：（Figures 34 and 4C）, Figure34?
Line 193：Figure 4b is the graph for SWE not for TMP; it should be (Figure 3b)?
Line 202：Figure 4c? but Figure 4 only has figures a and b.
Line 248：Figure 5b is the data graph for SM, not SWE.
Line 249：Figure 6 is the graph for SWE, not SM.
Line 407：Table 1 should be Table 2.
Clarify the figures in Line 255-260, Line 270-276, Line 301-399 and so on.
Response 1: Changed in the revised manuscript.
Point 2: The chart should be placed closest to where it first appeared in the text;
Response 2: Changed in the revised manuscript.
Point 3: Line 225, How to get the percentage of 90%？
Response 3: The calculation would be as follows:
Percentage = (Number of significant increases grids/ Total number of grids) x 100
= (9000 / 10000) x 100= 90%
Point 4: Line 405：How to consider the different spatial resolution of the data in Table 1 in the data processing?
Response 4: The datasets with different spatial resolutions are resampled on the CRU data by the bilinear interpolation method, which has been clarified in our revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
It is recommended that the author rewrite the Introduction, increase the citation of the literature, and extract questions and useful information from the literature. Through literature review, point out the shortcomings of existing research, thus leading to the article's environmental significance and purpose. In this section, the literature review needs to be more critical. The authors should detail the methodological novelties with the vast amount of existing literature in this area.
Why authors chosen 1 degree harmonic product of GRACE. Recent release are also available at 0.25 degree. Justify selection of GRACE data.
All datasets have different resolutions. How did authors have handled it?
Methods need to expand.
Author can evaluated individual contributions of each terrestrial water componant.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Point 1: It is recommended that the author rewrite the Introduction, increase the citation of the literature, and extract questions and useful information from the literature. Through literature review, point out the shortcomings of existing research, thus leading to the article's environmental significance and purpose. In this section, the literature review needs to be more critical. The authors should detail the methodological novelties with the vast amount of existing literature in this area.
Response 1: Thanks for these suggestions. We have been revised in our paper.
Point 2: Why authors chosen 1-degree harmonic product of GRACE. Recent release is also available at 0.25 degree. Justify selection of GRACE data.
Response 2: It’s a miswriting. The true resolution of GRACE data is 0.25 degree in our study.
Point 3: All datasets have different resolutions. How did authors have handled it?
Response 3: All the spatial resolutions are resampled on the CRU data using the bilinear interpolate method, which has been clarified in our revised manuscript.
Point 4: Methods need to expand.
Response 4: Expanded.
Point 5: Author can have evaluated individual contributions of each terrestrial water component.
Response 5: It is good suggestion. But our objectives in this study are to explore the temporal and spatial variations of the terrestrial water cycle and their relationships with climate factors. The individual contributions of each terrestrial water component will be measured in our future study.
Point 6: Changed in the revised manuscript
Response 6: Changed.
Point 7: Comments on the Quality of English Language
Response 7: Improved.
Point 8: Minor editing of English language required
Response 8: We are improved about English language with great energy.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
- Problems in the text were corrected
Minor editing of English language required
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors have addressed my concerns.
Minor editing of English language required
