Impact of Human Activities on Hydrological Drought Evolution in the Xilin River Basin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript reports on the impact of human activities on hydrological drought. The analysis of the article sounds reasonable. However, I have the following issues that need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication.
-There is no significant information in the abstract section that can reflect the study's significance.
-Please add more literature related to drought studies. These studies could enhance the readership https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120348; and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128543
- Is the SRI calculation based on natural flow?
-Please add information related to SRI distribution fitting.
-Please drought severity analysis in section 3.
-Is data used to run SWAT homogenous?
-Line 235: Please chage abbervation Ens to NSE
-Please add a limitation section before the conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments: The authors analyse and evaluate the hydrological drought in the Xilin River Basin due to anthropogenic activities. They used SWAT model to reconstruct natural conditions period and SRI at multiple time scales in order to differentiate natural from human consequences. The methodology is adequately described and fitted to the main goals of the paper. Furthermore, the results were also sufficiently developped. My main concern is the Discussion section. I believe that its content could be moved to Introduction section but Discussion should be rewrtite, showing the true meaning of the results and relating to previous findings, which is not addressed in the current version of the paper.
Specific comments:
Abstract: introduce the problem before introducing the key feature of the paper.
Line 12: indicate period
Lines 14-15: provide percentages.
Line 15: 1998 is just the main change? Indicate the techniques used.
Line 18: provide relative results.
1. Introduction
Lines 31-32: "involving the intersection of surface"---- what do you mean with intersection?
Line 33: processes
Lines 33-34: "the mechanisms is more complicated"--> compared to what??
Lines 67-68: Explain the importance of this basin. Reinforce
2. Materials and Methods
Lines 86-87: diameter of 20 cm--> explain
Lines 87-88: Under the dual influences of climate change and human activities---> add reference
Lines 88-90: This afirmation should be supported with other studies, or the paper itself.
Figure 1: Value DEM--> indicate units- Caption: define DEM.
Lines 96-100: Indicate sources of the data
Line 112: Add reference of SWAT model
Line 114: semi-distributed hydrological model
Line 118: HRUs---> define briefly the characteritics of HRUs
Line 122-123: consider delete, previously explained. There are more sentences like this. Revise.
Line 126: indicate validation and warm-up periods.
Lines 127-133: Replace by a Table with formula, range and optimum
Line 135: delete
Lines 138-139: explain more profoundly the use and meaning of the previous tests and curves. Essential for the study.
Lines 142-143: rewrite.
Lines 145-148: rewrite. Confusing. Related to natural regime.
Lines 180-181: how are the coefficients determined?
Line 184: delete corresponding
Table 1: add reference, previous study or explain the thresholds.
3. Results
Lines 228-229: relate to historical events.
Lines 232: "The SWAT model parameters"---> which ones?; were calibrated---> manually, automatically?
Line 310: have caused
Figure 8: explain M and D in vertical axis: write the letters (a: drought duration; b: drought intensity) in graphics
Line 348: and which is consistent
Discussion: Rewrite.
Lines 290-391: reformulate
4. Discussion
Line 392: indicated.
References: revise journal rules
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Given the experience of drought globally in 2022, this is a timely and important paper exploring ways of modelling to identify human influences on drought intensity and duration. The aims of the paper are clearly articulated and the methodology clear. Analysis of data seems appropriate and the assumptions are also articulated. Conclusions provide a good summary. Writing style is excellent with only a few very minor typos.
I would suggest two changes are needed to improve the paper:
1. That the case study description in 1. gives a little more detail about the kinds of human activity you refer to throughout the modelling. Currently, we only find out about the case study in section 4. This leaves the reader with some uncertainty what are the 'human activities' referred to in sections 2 and 3. In this regard, you should explain clearly whether you are referring only to human activities occurring within the case study (eg. farming / industry etc) or more widely (nationally/globally) such as human-induced climate change.
2. The conclusions should include some reference to your assumptions / limitations made in the modelling and also move the 'future research' suggestions at the end of section 4 into the conclusions (if not completely then a summary). This will ensure that readers who only read the conclusions can still gain a full understanding of your and future research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors has modified the paper according to my recommendations, so I think it is ready to be published. I only suggest that add units in Fig 8b Drought Intensity.
