Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Drivers of Wind Erosion during 1990–2020 in the Yarlung Zangbo River Basin, Southern Tibetan Plateau

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The presented article is devoted to the spatio-temporal analysis of wind erosion in the area of ​​interest. In the introduction, the issue of wind erosion is clearly and clearly described. A locality of interest is also presented. There are extensive areas with sandy soils in the area of ​​interest. There are also desert areas in the territory.

The authors used the RWEQ equation to determine the threat of wind erosion. Furthermore, the mutual influence of the factor affecting wind erosion was evaluated. It involved a combination of factors: W maximum wind speed, P represents precipitation, and FVC vegetation cover. Results and processing procedures were clearly described. The results of the work were comprehensibly commented and confronted with other published research outputs.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for carefully reviewing our manuscript and providing positive feedback. Your appreciation is highly valued and has motivated us to continue our efforts and improvements.

If you have any suggestions or comments regarding our research, we would be more than happy to hear them. Additionally, if you require any further information or supplementary materials, please feel free to reach out to us.

Once again, we sincerely appreciate your valuable time and the recognition of our research.

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I am grateful for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Spatiotemporal dynamics and drivers of wind erosion during 1990-2020 in Yarlung Zangbo River basin, Southern Tibetan Plateau." The research topic is highly important and relevant. However, after thoroughly reading the manuscript, I found it challenging to understand how the authors obtained the presented results. The research methodology is not sufficiently clear and precise. It appears that some steps were intentionally or inadvertently omitted, preventing readers from reproducing the study in other regions of the world. This is a significant drawback of the work.

 

My specific comments are as follows:

 

1. In Figure 1, please indicate the location of the study area on the map of Asia.

2. Generally, on maps, low absolute elevation values are represented with shades of green (lowlands), while high values are shown in shades of orange and red (elevated areas and mountains). In Figure 1b, you need to invert the color legend to reflect elevation values above 3000m, using shades of yellow, orange, and red.

3. Section 2.2: Present a table with the used data, sources of acquisition, spatial resolution, and/or scales. How did you address the issue of varying spatial resolution in the source data?

4. In Formulas 1-7, some values' origins and calculation methods are unclear. Any other researcher would be unable to calculate anything based solely on reading your article. Provide a detailed, step-by-step description of the methodology.

5. FVC - how was it calculated? Obtained? (Table 1)

6. How many meteorological stations did you use? Are their data sufficient for such a large study area?

7. Figure 2: The methodology does not explain the source of the values presented in the map legends.

8. Section 2.3.2: How were the values calculated? Which formulas and software were used?

9. Figure 6: If you create separate maps for each legend element, won't they overlap for each element of the legend?

10. Sections 4.1 and 4.2 contain research results. They should not be in Section 4.

11. Section 4.3 contains insufficient data. Compare the obtained data with other countries and expand this section.

12. Lines 504-508: Remove redundant information from the manuscript formatting template.

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer’s evaluation of our work. I 'm sorry I didn’t make it clear, so we modified the method accordingly, mainly modified 2.3.1.Soil wind erosion modulus, 2.3.2.Spatiotemporal trend analysis, and 2.3.5.Measurement of driving factor, in which the formulas in 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 were all supplemented, and the errors in 2.3.5 were corrected accordingly. All your concerns have been carefully considered and revised. The detailed revisions can be found in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors!

In my opinion, that work is a well-based work with appropriate methodology. The results are well presented, with small mistakes in figures (these mistakes are indicated in the attached documents). The discussion is well-built and the conclusions follows from the results. Some remarks are inserted in the text, please try to take into consideration when improve the study.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer’s positive evaluation of our work and agree with the comments regarding the limitations of our study. All your concerns have been carefully considered and revised. The detailed revisions can be found in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors. I have read your answers and am generally satisfied with them. The article may be accepted in present form.