Spatiotemporal Variations in Light Precipitation Events in the Yellow River Basin, China, and Relationships with Large-Scale Atmospheric Circulation Patterns

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article as a whole did not meet the expectations I had based on the title and abstract. Especially the analysis of the relationships with large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns is very preliminary. Below are some of the more serious comments.

• Fig.1 - The elevation model is very weak. It is not clear how the relief is further used in the construction both of precipitation and days with precip time series for the whole area (parts e to f in Figs. 3 to 8).
• p. 4, l. 136 - It is not possible to reduce "consistency and homogeneity" to just completing missing data or excluding series with missing data as shown below. An analysis of the homogeneity of the selected 66 series would be useful.
• p. 5, l. 165 - "one event at a given station" - I understand that the LPAI is calculated for a selected period of time, presumably a year. Here as an example on lines 167-172 for 5 days. Is that correct? Therefore, can't these rainfall days be marked as an event (see the first sentence of section 2.2.1 - "event is defined as a day with ...").
• Fig. 2 - Fig. 9  - There is no consistency between the text and the legend in the figures. For example, Fig. 2 has a legend for mean annual precipitation ranging from 142.5 to 274 mm, but the text indicates that the lowest annual precipitation was 343.7 mm in 1965 (not stated at which station). Same in Figure 3, where the legend is from 343.7 to 410.9, but the highest according to the text is 238.3 in 1964, etc.
• Fig. 3 - The part e and f is missing
• Tab. 1 - The meaning of the table is unclear. It is probably not about events, but an analysis of the homogeneity of the trend with a marked break. Is there really only one break in each series? Is the break in the G2 series in 2001 (see text) or in 1978 (see table)? What does the value of "variation" in the fifth column indicate? Would it not be more appropriate to give a characteristic describing, for example, the change in the speed of the trend?
• Fig. 10 - The correlation is expressed by a colour scale. The legend to express significance (circle size?) is missing.
• Part 3.5 - I propose to significantly expand the description of the results presented in Tab. 10. Why does the NAO and PDO have a negative correlation to precipitation over the YRB while ENSO and AU have a positive correlation? There is clearly a negative correlation of precipitation with altitude, but this is not described in any way in the individual sections of the paper.

In the discussion and conclusion, I would expect to see a reflection on the slower decline in precipitation in the G1 to G5 categories gradually since 1960. Is the reason for this the decreasing sensitivity of precipitation measurements? Changes in instrumentation? Is climate change (higher temperature and therefore higher evaporation) the cause? Or is it consistent with changes in large-scale atmospheric patterns?

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

This response letter is dedicated to providing in-depth answers to the comments from the Reviewers and editors. We would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation for your insightful suggestions that have significantly improved the quality of our paper. In the following, we provide detailed, item-by-item responses to all the questions raised by the reviewers. It should be emphasized that, in order to simplify the review of our manuscript, the modifications introduced in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in yellow color to help the Editors and Reviewers in finding the changes made with regard to the previous version.

Best wishes,

All authors.  

May. 20, 2022

 

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:

The article as a whole did not meet the expectations I had based on the title and abstract. Especially the analysis of the relationships with large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns is very preliminary. Below are some of the more serious comments.

Q1: Fig.1 - The elevation model is very weak. It is not clear how the relief is further used in the construction both of precipitation and days with precip time series for the whole area (parts e to f in Figs. 3 to 8).

Response:

Thank you very much for your comments.

This is a very good question, but the principal objectives of this study are to explore the spatiotemporal variability of light precipitation events (LPE) in this article. Fig. 1only shows the spatial distribution of meteorological stations and variations of altitude. And the spatial distribution of LPE excluded the altitude distribution.

Q2: p. 4, l. 136 - It is not possible to reduce "consistency and homogeneity" to just completing missing data or excluding series with missing data as shown below. An analysis of the homogeneity of the selected 66 series would be useful.

Response:

For stations of missing data, if one station has more than 1% missing data and the missing data in one station exceed three consecutive months, this station was excluded from this study. Finally, data from 66 surface stations were selected as appropriate for this analysis.

Q3: p. 5, l. 165 - "one event at a given station" - I understand that the LPAI is calculated for a selected period of time, presumably a year. Here as an example on lines 167-172 for 5 days. Is that correct? Therefore, can't these rainfall days be marked as an event (see the first sentence of section 2.2.1 - "event is defined as a day with ...").

Response:

Thank you very much for your comments.

This is true. We established a light precipitation assessment index (LPAI) considering the trends in such events. For one event at a given station, LPAI can be calculated as follows:

LPAI = G₁ ∙ D₁ + G₂ ∙ D₂ + G₃ ∙ D₃ + G₄ ∙ D₄ + G₅ ∙ D₅       (1)

where G_i represents the specific grade of light precipitation (i=1, … ,5) and D_i is the number of days of light precipitation at said grade. For example, for a light precipitation event that lasted five days with precipitation amounts of 1.2, 2.4, 4.5,8.8 and 9.6 mm, its LPAI is G₁(1) ∙ D₁(1) + G₂(2) ∙ D₂(1) +G₃(3) ∙ D₃(1) + G₄(4) ∙ D₄(0) + G₅(5) ∙ D₅(2) = 1×1+2×1+3×1+4×0+5×2=16.

More recent methods were described elsewhere Li et al. (2021) and Zhang et al. (2019).

Li K F, Cao L G, Zhou Z C, et al., 2022. Characteristics and Cause Analysis of Variations in Light Precipitation Events in the Central and Eastern Tibetan Plateau, China, During 1961-2019. Chinese Geographical Science, 32(1), 155-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-021-1249-x

Zhang Y Q, Liu C M, You Q L, et al., 2019b. Decrease in light precipitation events in Huai River Eco-economic Corridor, a climate transitional zone in eastern China. Atmospheric Research, 226, 240-254. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2019.04.027

 

Q4: Fig. 2 - Fig. 9 - There is no consistency between the text and the legend in the figures. For example, Fig. 2 has a legend for mean annual precipitation ranging from 142.5 to 274 mm, but the text indicates that the lowest annual precipitation was 343.7 mm in 1965 (not stated at which station). Same in Figure 3, where the legend is from 343.7 to 410.9, but the highest according to the text is 238.3 in 1964, etc.

Response:

Thank you for your question. The reviewer’s question is due to our unclear statement.

The mean annual precipitation ranging from 142.5 to 274 mm derived from the spatial distribution of the average annual precipitation. So, the 142.5 to 274 mm means to the single station. The lowest annual precipitation was 343.7 mm in 1965 which derived from the time series of the annual average precipitation over all sites in the YRB.

Thus, those computational data are correct.

Q5: Fig. 3 - The part e and f is missing

Response:

It's my fault. We have modified and added relevant content in the manuscript.

Q6: Tab. 1 - The meaning of the table is unclear. It is probably not about events, but an analysis of the homogeneity of the trend with a marked break. Is there really only one break in each series? Is the break in the G2 series in 2001 (see text) or in 1978 (see table)? What does the value of "variation" in the fifth column indicate? Would it not be more appropriate to give a characteristic describing, for example, the change in the speed of the trend?

Response:

Your good advice was very much appreciated.

The time series of the annual average light precipitation is only one clear mutation by M-K method.

We have modified the original manuscript (A mutation in G2 occurred in 1978).

The value of "variation" means to the before and after abrupt in light precipitation.

We have added relevant content about the change in the speed of the trend.

Q7: Fig. 10 - The correlation is expressed by a colour scale. The legend to express significance (circle size?) is missing.

Response:

The Fig.10 is of bilateral symmetry. From the right figure of Fig. 10, the deeper the color, the stronger the significance.

Q8: Part 3.5 - I propose to significantly expand the description of the results presented in Tab. 10. Why does the NAO and PDO have a negative correlation to precipitation over the YRB while ENSO and AU have a positive correlation? There is clearly a negative correlation of precipitation with altitude, but this is not described in any way in the individual sections of the paper.

Response:

We have modified the original manuscript and added relevant content.

Q9: In the discussion and conclusion, I would expect to see a reflection on the slower decline in precipitation in the G1 to G5 categories gradually since 1960. Is the reason for this the decreasing sensitivity of precipitation measurements? Changes in instrumentation? Is climate change (higher temperature and therefore higher evaporation) the cause? Or is it consistent with changes in large-scale atmospheric patterns?

Response:

This study used daily precipitation data during 1960-2018 provided by meteorological stations of the National Climate Center of the China Meteorological Administration (http://www.nmic.gov.cn). So, this study takes no account of the changes in instrumentation. we investigated possible reasons for variations in light precipitation events and found that altitude and LSACPs (ENSO, AO, NAO, and PDO) exhibited positive and negative correlations with light precipitation. The whole study area is affected by multiple climate indexes, indicating that the influence of one climate index is always regulated by other climate indexes. Some studies also indicated that the atmospheric circulation change is an important mechanism affecting the heat and moisture transportation in some regions of China (Li et al., 2012; Guan et al., 2017). This results also reflect the complexity of regional climate change in this area because atmospheric circulation not only cause the complex variation of precipitation but also change its altitude dependence.

We sincerely hope the reviewer could agree with this explanation.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting manuscript that provides information on the spatiotemporal variations of light precipitation events across the Yellow River Basin (YRB), China, from 1960 to 2018, and explored their relationships with large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns and altitude. In my opinion, this manuscript is not within the scope of Sustainability, however, it fits the hydrology section of the sister journal "Water" after a required improvement. 

My suggestions are:

• This study just considered the observed precipitations. So, I found the first paragraph (lines 33-48) of this manuscript irrelevant and slightly misleading to the readers. Please remove this paragraph. Instead, review similar studies which investigate the interconnection and trends between large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns and local precipitation (See [1-2]).
• The novelty of your study is marginal and you can improve it via the implementation of innovative methods. For example, the classic  Mann-Kendall (M-K) test and Sen’s slope methods were used for trend analysis. More recent methods could be implemented [see 3-4].

[1] Mohammadi, B., Vaheddoost, B., & Mehr, A. D. (2020). A spatiotemporal teleconnection study between Peruvian precipitation and oceanic oscillations. Quaternary International, 565, 1-11.

[2] Mathbout, S., Lopez‐Bustins, J. A., Royé, D., Martin‐Vide, J., & Benhamrouche, A. (2020). Spatiotemporal variability of daily precipitation concentration and its relationship to teleconnection patterns over the Mediterranean during 1975–2015. International Journal of Climatology, 40(3), 1435-1455.

[3] Danandeh Mehr, A., Hrnjica, B., Bonacci, O., & Torabi Haghighi, A. (2021). Innovative and successive average trend analysis of temperature and precipitation in Osijek, Croatia. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 145(3), 875-890.

[4] Caloiero, T., Coscarelli, R., & Ferrari, E. (2018). Application of the innovative trend analysis method for the trend analysis of rainfall anomalies in southern Italy. Water Resources Management, 32(15), 4971-4983.

 

Author Response

Revision Actions and Response Letter to the Manuscript Entitled " Spatiotemporal variations of light precipitation events in the Yellow River Basin, China, and relationships with large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns " (No. sustainability-1717387)

Dear Reviewers,

This response letter is dedicated to providing in-depth answers to the comments from the Reviewers and editors. We would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation for your insightful suggestions that have significantly improved the quality of our paper. In the following, we provide detailed, item-by-item responses to all the questions raised by the reviewers. It should be emphasized that, in order to simplify the review of our manuscript, the modifications introduced in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in yellow color to help the Editors and Reviewers in finding the changes made with regard to the previous version.

Best wishes,

All authors.  

May. 18, 2022

Reviewer #2:

This is an interesting manuscript that provides information on the spatiotemporal variations of light precipitation events across the Yellow River Basin (YRB), China, from 1960 to 2018, and explored their relationships with large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns and altitude. In my opinion, this manuscript is not within the scope of Sustainability, however, it fits the hydrology section of the sister journal "Water" after a required improvement. 

My suggestions are:

S1: This study just considered the observed precipitations. So, I found the first paragraph (lines 33-48) of this manuscript irrelevant and slightly misleading to the readers. Please remove this paragraph. Instead, review similar studies which investigate the interconnection and trends between large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns and local precipitation (See [1-2]).

Response:

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

We have modified the original manuscript and added relevant content about the interconnection and trends between large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns and local precipitation (Lines 105-113)

Additionally, heavy precipitation events are likely to intensify and become more frequent in most regions as global warming intensifies. Some studies investigated changes in rainfall intensity from different parts of China and found that light precipitation events have been decreasing across the country in the context of continued warming of the global climate. Thus, the effect of warming and light rain events is connected. So, we did not remove this paragraph.

We sincerely hope the reviewer could agree with this explanation.

S2: The novelty of your study is marginal and you can improve it via the implementation of innovative methods. For example, the classic Mann-Kendall (M-K) test and Sen’s slope methods were used for trend analysis. More recent methods could be implemented [see 3-4].

Response:

I am very grateful to you for your good suggestion.

We have added relevant content in the manuscript.

[1] Mohammadi, B., Vaheddoost, B., & Mehr, A. D. (2020). A spatiotemporal teleconnection study between Peruvian precipitation and oceanic oscillations. Quaternary International, 565, 1-11.

[2] Mathbout, S., Lopez‐Bustins, J. A., Royé, D., Martin‐Vide, J., & Benhamrouche, A. (2020). Spatiotemporal variability of daily precipitation concentration and its relationship to teleconnection patterns over the Mediterranean during 1975–2015. International Journal of Climatology, 40(3), 1435-1455.

[3] Danandeh Mehr, A., Hrnjica, B., Bonacci, O., & Torabi Haghighi, A. (2021). Innovative and successive average trend analysis of temperature and precipitation in Osijek, Croatia. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 145(3), 875-890.

[4] Caloiero, T., Coscarelli, R., & Ferrari, E. (2018). Application of the innovative trend analysis method for the trend analysis of rainfall anomalies in southern Italy. Water Resources Management, 32(15), 4971-4983.

Finally, we are grateful to the editorial and all the reviewers for all the suggestions and reviews you have made. It is really a good chance for us to improve our research and paper.

Sincerely yours,

Kexin Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I read the authors' answers carefully. I do not always agree, but I acknowledge and agree with the publication.  Just one more change I'd like to suggest:

- Change "To ensure the consistency and homogeneity of the ..." by "To ensure the consistency of the ...".

I estimate that the homogeneity of the precipitation measurement time series was not considered.

Author Response

Reviewer #1: Just one more change I'd like to suggest: - Change "To ensure the consistency and homogeneity of the ..." by "To ensure the consistency of the ...". Response: I am very grateful to you for your good suggestion. We have modified in the manuscript. Thank you again very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

As I mentioned in my first round review, the manuscript has (1) no connection with sustainability, (2) no methodological contribution to the field, and (3) the first paragraph of the introduction is irrelevant to the study. Unfortunately, the authors were not considered my comments appropriately and the manuscript is not suitable for publication. 

Author Response

As I mentioned in my first round review, the manuscript has (1) no connection with sustainability, (2) no methodological contribution to the field, and (3) the first paragraph of the introduction is irrelevant to the study. Unfortunately, the authors were not considered my comments appropriately and the manuscript is not suitable for publication.

Response:

 

I must apologize that if I offended you I didn't mean to.

(1) The first paragraph of the introduction has removed and modified in the manuscript.

(2) For this paper, our major aims of this study are to: (a) explore the spatiotemporal variability of light precipitation events in the YRB; (b) understand impacts of altitude on light precipitation events over the YRB; and (c) investigate whether LSACPs (ENSO, NAO, AO, and PDO) are the dominant mechanisms behind changes in the occurrence of light precipitation events in the YRB.

But the analytical method was used by the conventional methods.

I sincerely hope the reviewer could agree with this explanation.

(3) For this question-(1) no connection with sustainability, I am very sorry I couldn't answer it.

Thank you again very much for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Well improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer and Editor,

This response letter is dedicated to providing in-depth answers to the comments from the Reviewers and editors. We would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation for your insightful suggestions that have significantly improved the quality of our paper. In the following, we provide detailed, item-by-item responses to all the questions raised by the reviewers. It should be emphasized that, in order to simplify the review of our manuscript, the modifications introduced in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in yellow color to help the Editors and Reviewers in finding the changes made with regard to the previous version.

Best wishes,

All authors.  

Jun. 2, 2022

 

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:

Q1. ENSO, NAO, AO, and PDO are climate phenomena involving ocean-atmosphere interactions. They are not only the large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns as mentioned in the manuscript. Please modify those sentences.

Response:

Thank you for your good suggestion.

Initially, this statement (large-scale atmospheric circulation pattern) is a reference to these papers (Deng et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2020).

 

Deng Y, Jiang W, He B, et al., 2018. Change in intensity and frequency of extreme precipitation and its possible teleconnection with large‐scale climate index over the China from 1960 to 2015. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, 123(4):2068-2081.

Wang X Y, Li Y Q, Wang M M, et al., 2021. Changes in daily extreme temperature and precipitation events in mainland China from 1960 to 2016 under global warming. International Journal of Climatology, 41(2),1465-1483.

I sincerely hope the reviewer could agree with this explanation.

Q2. Although one of the major aims of this article is to study the links of these climate phenomena with the light rain events of the study region, authors have done little to describe those relationships carefully except for some references to their correlations. Moreover, the correlation coefficients provided in Fig. 10 were not legible to me. Please modify the figure and provide the significant correlation coefficients in dark bold fonts and insignificant correlation coefficients in dark grey fonts.  Also, please modify the sub-section 3.5 by discussing the significant correlations and deriving some inferences from those.
Response:

(1) The Fig.10 is of bilateral symmetry. The left side of the figure is correlation coefficients. From the right legend of Fig. 10, the deeper the color, the stronger the significance.

(2) We have added relevant content in the sub-section 3.5 and Discussion 4.

Thank you again very much.

Q3. This article needs extensive language editing, which should be either done by authors with the help of professional services or by the publisher.  I have provided here some suggestions only for the important ones in the abstract and conclusion.
Response:

I am very grateful to you for your good suggestion.

We are willing to ask proofreading experts (Editage (www.editage.cn)) to improve English writing as well as carefully spell checking.

Besides, we have tried our best to avoid similar mistakes in the revised work. All other similar parts have been corrected according to the reviewers' comments.

 

Finally, we are grateful to the editorial and all the reviewers for all the suggestions and reviews you have made. It is really a good chance for us to improve our research and paper.

Sincerely yours,

Kexin Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx