Changes in Water Surface Area of the Lake in the Steppe Region of Mongolia: A Case Study of Ugii Nuur Lake, Central Mongolia
, Batsuren Dorjsuren 2,*, Denghua Yan 3,*, Sandelger Dorligjav 1, Hao Wang 3, Altanbold Enkhbold 1, Baisha Weng 3, Tianlin Qin 3, Kun Wang 3, Tuvshin Gerelmaa 1, Oyunbaatar Dambaravjaa 4, Wuxia Bi 3,5, Yuheng Yang 3, Byambabayar Ganbold 1, Mohammed Gedefaw 6,7, Asaminew Abiyu 6 and Abel Girma 6,7
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Changes in water surface area of the lake in the 2 steppe region of Mongolia: A case study of Ugii Nuur 3 Lake, Central Mongolia
Manuscript ID: water-744522
Summary:
It is not recommended to publish the paper in its present form. There are several open issues which have to be settled prior to a publication. A major revision is suggested.
Review:
Relevance. The authors need to explain why it is of relevance to publish the paper. As there are presumably a couple of hundreds similar watersheds it needs to be explained why that specific one and its possible behaviour under climate change is of relevance. Is it a very important one? And if yes, why? Is it exceptional well studied? Are more than usual data sets available?
Some more detailed and specific comments for the authors are as below.
Name of the paper:
Change it according to rules for English headings:
Changes in Water Surface Area of the Lake in the 2 Steppe Region of Mongolia: A Case Study of Ugii Nuur 3 Lake, Central Mongolia
Abstract
The abstract is too general, vague and it not gives intention to continue read whole paper. It would be useful to add there more detailed information, whether concerning to the river basin (e.g. what is the climate, land use...), or more specific information about the results. There are missing important information, for example the main results of present study. This information needs to be included in the Abstract part.
Line 29: Use in the manuscript: “global climate change,” instead of the “climate change.”
Line 29: What is the size of the Ugii Nuur Lake and the Orkhon River Basin? It should be included there.
Line 29: Why there is this statement?: the most vulnerable area for climate change.
Was this a prerequisite of this paper?
Line 35: It is not true: the inflow components includes the river discharge.
Line 37: Please add the exact number, not only more then: …the lake area has been decreased by more than 13%
Line 38: Was it decreasing comparing the year 1986 and 2018 or inter-period exchange?
It is not clear from this Abstract. Please specify it there!
Line 39: In general, the impacts of climatic variables and components of the lake water balance on water surface area change of the lake were moderate.
This sentence needs to be reformulated, because there should not be general statement in the Abstract. In addition, on the base of what do you know that the impacts “were moderate?”
Introduction
Why do you choose this study area? A clearer explanation why this work is important is needed. What was the hypothesis? Describe in more details the objectives used to test the hypothesis. What the aims of the study?
Line 47: Use “climate variability,” instead of the “climate variation” here and in whole manuscript
Line 48: Especially, large parts of Central Asia have been considered as land, semi-arid steppe, Gobi and desert. This sentence is unclear. What does it means? I recommend rewriting it to be clearer. It would be useful to specify the exact name, e.g. Gobi desert instead: Gobi and desert.
Line 49: What does it means “few precipitation?“ Specify amount of precipitation as an annual rainfall.
Line 51: Clearly specify “the temperature.” e.g. average annual air temperature
Line 58: It is not clear in the field, please specify: soil, vegetation, and ecology field
Line 59: What kind of evolution do you mean? It has to be explained!
Line 63: Please use the same form for the References in whole text, not mix of number and names: [number] of name: (Jimee (2000)
Line 64: Do you mean “the river Orkhon?“
What do you mean „Lake?“ Why it is with capital letter?
Line 65: Letter should be in this format: 5,020 km2 instead of 5020 km2
Line 67: lake sediment or lake sediments
Line 69: SI units have to be used instead of 380 cm in whole manuscript.
Line 71: Why do you use this expression? It is old from the geological point of view? How, you should clearly indicate: It indicates that the lake is 71 relatively young [14].
Line 73: Elevation? Do you mean: elevation above sea level? Please indicate!
Line 78: separate: sea level in
Line 81: check units: of 1335 м
Line 82: What does it means? Please identify: is relatively shallow
Methods
What are the climate characteristics during the observing period, e.g. average annual temperature, total annual precipitation amount, average inflow and discharge and others? This section should be more accurate. There are absent: a more detailed description of sites (soil type, geological characteristic, climate etc.) a more detailed description of sites is necessary. Use the correct terminology: wind speed, evapotranspiration…
Line 91: Please specify the surface area of the Orkhon river basin in km2 and country of its origin, e.g. where it is located.
Line 92: The capital state without a dash: city-Ulaanbaatar
Line 93: Use the following all units in the whole manuscript: g.l-1 instead of g/L
Line 99: Use the following format here and in whole manuscript: 5,020 km2, instead of 5020 km2.
Line 99: Explain what means and represents these characteristics and their values:
- the ratio between shoreline length and length of a circle with the same area of 0.64,
- shape stretch degree of 1.40,
- the difference between lake basin area and lake surface area 195.0 km2.
Line 104: Figure 1. The source https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov is not included in the References, it has to be incorporated. Check also all the authors in the references.
Line 110: Specify these characteristics:
The air temperature: Is it average air temperature?
Wind velocity: Do you mean wind speed? If so in which unites it is measured?
Precipitation data: for what period and in which units?
Did you use only 1 weather station?
Line 112: This sentence must be clearer:
Daily average inflow data or discharge measured by Khogshin Orkhon River Station was used for estimating water balance.
What are the daily average inflow data or discharge? Did you use all of these dada, or did you replace some of missing data. How was the water balance estimated, it has to be specify!
Line 121: 2.3. Methods replace with 2. Materials and Methods
The different analytical methods those you describe here must be clarified. The explanations why you choose them need to be elucidated.
Line 172: Check all overlays: e.g.: thechange
Line 173: It is evaporation or evapotranspiration? How did you obtain these data? It has to be specified!
Line 177: This sentence is not clear at all, reformulate it and avoid to start sentence with To: To detect the impacts of recent climate change on the variation of the water surface area of the lake, it should consider the precipitation and river inflow as income of the water balance equation, and the evaporation as the outcome.
What about the discharge?
Line 183: Use the term wind speed instead of the wind velocity?
Line 188: Check the equation and correct the units in the whole manuscript, e.g. wind speed is should be v, not V.
Line 190: The Surface temperature of what? Please identify!
Line 194: Put the equation 14 in the correct format!
Line 195: Temperature use in the form: t<0 °C, instead of t<0°C, here and everywhere in the manuscript.
Line 198: This reference is not correct, use the correct citation styles.
Results and discussion
The results of the work need to be better specified and described
Discussion section has to clarify to the reader what is new or novel about this work.
Line 214: air temperature? Is it daily, monthly or annual? Average, minimum or maximum? Specify here and in the whole text of the manuscript!
Line 275: Use the correct format everywhere in the manuscript, not Fig. 6 and then Figure 7 (see Line 252) and then Figure 8 (Line 289).
Line 276: Write the years chronologically e.g.: in 1986 and 2018 instead of 2018 with that in 1986
Line 302: Figure 10: water lever, indicate in SI units!
Figure 10: Describe what kind of the relationship, not only in general
Line 304: r=0.95, but in the Figure R=0,95?
Line 307: The sentence is incomplete
Line 325: Explain the correlation coefficient according to the individual value results, it means describe, what it means.
What is definition of warm period? How long does it make?
Line 327: This sentence it not clear, please reformulate it:
In other words, besides the theoretical assumption of the increase of air temperature with a consequent increase of evaporation and this causes a decrease in the water surface area of the lake.
Line 335: Where are these results shown? They should be displayed in the individual table: The correlation analysis between precipitation and lake on surface area has been done for total annual, summer, warm, and cold season…
Define also the duration of the individual seasons: total annual, summer, warm, and cold season.
Conclusions
What is the motivation for the study? What output responses are being investigated? Much more detail is needed here.
Is this manuscript in accordance with other studies?
Line 355: It is not absolutely clear from this manuscript, in addition it do not mention these values at all:
… sharp decrease in precipitation and inflow river discharge and a considerable increase in evaporation and air temperature, the surface area of the Ugii Nuur Lake has decreased sharply.
Author Response
Cover letter
Dear Editors,
Thank you very much for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions given by the reviewers and editors to improve the quality of our manuscript. It is our belief that the manuscript is substantially improved after making the suggested comments and reconstruction edits.
Following this letter are the comments given by the reviewer with our responses including where the necessary changes were made line by line in the manuscript which is marked with blue in the main body of the manuscript. All the co-authors participated in the revision of the manuscript and finally approved it for submission.
Hopefully, you will find our responses satisfactory and the manuscript will be acceptable for publication.
Best regards,
Ph.D, BATSUREN Dorjsuren
Senior Lecturer,
Department of Environment and Forest Engineering,
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences,
National University of Mongolia
Phone: + 976-11-77307730 ext 3208
Email: [email protected]
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has some local importance. However, the results lack novelty. The authors did not present a well-prepared case. I understand that they have obtained a decent amount of data, but the synthesis wasn’t there. The format of the manuscript also requires improvement. There is not enough discussion on results. The results look obvious. This is okay for a project report, but for a journal paper, the authors need to add more depth to the analysis. Merely running some statistics and reporting results is not good enough for a journal like Water. I recommend the authors revise the manuscript and submit again.
General Comments:
Introduction: The introduction of the paper sounds more like a study area rather than a complete background or a literature review of the study. Ideally, an introduction should identify a gap(s) in the existing literature and try to provide a solution for it. In the last paragraph, the authors briefly mention a gap, but it’s not properly explained. The introduction also doesn’t mention the methods at all. The novelty of the work and major contributions should be highlighted in the introduction, which is currently missing.
Citation style: The authors have used inconsistent citation styles, which hampers readability. Please check thoroughly and be consistent with the journal guideline. I have pointed out one instance in the specific comment section, but there are other instances.
Lines 142 to 145: Are these parts of the original Mann-Kendall trend test? The statements are not clear. I am not sure how these works. Also, it says UB = -UF in figure captions. But in the figures, they are not. Am I missing something here? I didn’t understand this part by reading the manuscript.
Figures 2 to 6: What is the confidence bound?
Figure 7: What is the point of an equation and R-squared value in a bar chart?
Figure 8: What methods in ArcGIS was used to calculate the surface area from Landsat 8 images?
Figure 9: The last two images (2014 and 2018) do not look like false-color images. I am assuming the authors have used color IR or NDWI here.
Figure 11: Temperature and precipitation r values do not seem significant, especially precipitation does not seem to have any relationship.
Specific Comments:
Lines 73 to 81: Please fix the citations in this paragraph. They are inconsistent with the rest of the paper.
Line 80: Is “Hydro-meteorological research institute” a separate institute or are the authors referring to research institutes in general? Whichever the case is, please add a reference.
Line 110: “atthe” -> at the
Line 110: Please provide links (or cite reports) for the National Agency of Meteorology and Environment of Mongolia and other local sources.
Line 123: Mann-Kendall test: Consider citing these following papers that apply modified versions of the MK test to account for auto-correlation, which is very important while dealing with hydro-climatological data.
- Tamaddun, K. A., Kalra, A., & Ahmad, S. (2019). Spatiotemporal Variation in the Continental US Streamflow in Association with Large-Scale Climate Signals Across Multiple Spectral Bands. Water Resources Management, 33(6), 1947–1968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-019-02217-8
- Tamaddun, K. A., Kalra, A., Bernardez, M., & Ahmad, S. (2019). Effects of ENSO on temperature, precipitation, and potential evapotranspiration of north India’s monsoon: An analysis of trend and entropy. Water (Switzerland), 11(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020189
- Tamaddun, K. A., Kalra, A., Kumar, S., & Ahmad, S. (2019). CMIP5 models’ ability to capture observed trends under the influence of shifts and persistence: an in-depth study on the Colorado River Basin. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 58(8), 1677–1688. https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-18-0251.1
Line 149: MK was already abbreviated on line 123. No need to abbreviate again.
Line 198: What is ERA?
Line 201: “empiric” -> empirical
Line 201: Please abbreviate WMO on line 107 and use the abbreviated form in the rest of the manuscript.
Line 208 and elsewhere: If the authors abbreviate Mann-Kendall to MK, please use MK throughout. No need to right Mann-Kendall repeatedly.
Line 294: Please mention the full form of NDWI.
Lines 307-308: What is the point of this line?
Author Response
Cover letter
Dear Editors,
Thank you very much for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions given by the reviewers and editors to improve the quality of our manuscript. It is our belief that the manuscript is substantially improved after making the suggested comments and reconstruction edits.
Following this letter are the comments given by the reviewer with our responses including where the necessary changes were made line by line in the manuscript which is marked with blue in the main body of the manuscript. All the co-authors participated in the revision of the manuscript and finally approved it for submission.
Hopefully, you will find our responses satisfactory and the manuscript will be acceptable for publication.
Best regards,
Ph.D, BATSUREN Dorjsuren
Senior Lecturer,
Department of Environment and Forest Engineering,
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences,
National University of Mongolia
Phone: + 976-11-77307730 ext 3208
Email: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript describes an analysis of surface lake area changes estimating trend and correlation of proxy hydroclimatic variables.
While the manuscript is easy and pleasant to read I have some comments to share with the authors.
Firstly, I see that this manuscript would be more appropriate for Journals like Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies since it provides a good case study application related to a specific region.
Secondly, there are two drawbacks that should reduce the emphasis of the conclusions. The time series length is too short to support general conclusions either concerning the lake decreasing reasons and proxy behavior. The absence of groundwater (as mentioned by the authors line 176-177) in the water balance is crucial, and in my view, it is confirmed by the weak correlation among proxies and lake surface.
My suggestion is to underline these drawbacks in the manuscript and accordingly adapt the conclusions.
Author Response
Cover letter
Dear Editors,
Thank you very much for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions given by the reviewers and editors to improve the quality of our manuscript. It is our belief that the manuscript is substantially improved after making the suggested comments and reconstruction edits.
Following this letter are the comments given by the reviewer with our responses including where the necessary changes were made line by line in the manuscript which is marked with blue in the main body of the manuscript. All the co-authors participated in the revision of the manuscript and finally approved it for submission.
Hopefully, you will find our responses satisfactory and the manuscript will be acceptable for publication.
Best regards,
Ph.D, BATSUREN Dorjsuren
Senior Lecturer,
Department of Environment and Forest Engineering,
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences,
National University of Mongolia
Phone: + 976-11-77307730 ext 3208
Email: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Notes on
Changes in water surface area of the lake in the 2 steppe region of Mongolia: A case study of Ugii Nuur 3 Lake, Central Mongolia
Erdenesukh Sumiya 1, Batsuren Dorjsuren 2, *, Denghua Yan 3, *, Sandelger Dorligjav 1, Hao Wang 5 3, Altanbold Enkhbold 1, Baisha Weng 3, Tianlin Qin 3, Kun Wang 3, Tuvshin Gerelmaa 1, 6 Oyunbaatar Dambaravjaa 4, Wuxia Bi 3, 5, Yuheng Yang 3, Byambabayar Ganbold 1, Mohammed 7 Gedefaw 6, 7, Asaminew Abiyu 6, Abel Girma 6, 7
The paper is rather factual. It provide some element to explain the variation of the surface of uugi lake in Mongolia. The paper deserves publication but it needs some improvements and deeper explanations on some points.
Context and starting point of the demonstration:
The paper does not provide enough elements of context to understand the evolution of the lake.
What about the outflow river ? is there outflow river ? Please, add on the map (figure 1) the Khogshin Orkhon river and put arrows for the direction of flows. Is Khogshin Orkhon river an outflow or inflow of the lake ? it is not clear for me. The authors must explain in what this river influence the level of the lake. How does work the communication between the lake and the Orkhon river ? Please locate also the Khogshin Orkhon River Station.
- add a photograph (around line 60-80) to show the landscape of the surroundings of the lake
I think that the analysis should start by the graph of the evolution of water surface (figure 7) because that is what the authors explain after. So first the authors can describe the evolution of the lake and then provide some elements of explanation (inflow, evaporation…).
Statistical analysis
For non-specialist people, please define more precisely what are UF and UB.
Why authors use the sole temperature as the temperature is already included in the formula to calculate the evaporation (line 183) ?
- in table 3 : put in bold or in italic the significant rates
Comments :
Some points must be explained more precisely: in figure 3 the precipitations show a decline till 2010 and then a grow up of precipitations since 2010 (right?)
The figure 7 show that the surface of the lake decreases till 2010 and then rises up till now (right?)
So why the correlation rate between water surface area and precipitation is r = 0.08 ? (figure 11)
Line 337 : the author can’t state that “The water surface area of the lake does not have any statistical relationship with the precipitation in cold season (r = 0.0), but annual and summer precipitation has a weak impact on a change in the water surface area of the lake area with a correlation coefficient of r=0.08, and r=0.14. In other words, if the precipitation amount increases, the lake surface area will expand.”
I think that this assumption is abusive. This paper shows that precipitation are not a driver of the lake surface. R = 0.08 is not a significant correlation (it means variables are independent).
We agree in the following assumption telling that evaporation and inflows are relevant to explain water surface variability but we need more explanation on what influences the inflow i.e. the discharge of the river. Are they human uses of water (e.g. irrigation) that could influence the inflow volume of water and the level of the lake ?
I think that the demonstration would be better if the authors would consider the volume of water instead of the mere surface of the lake. It can be presented as a perspective of the work in the last part of the paper.
Author Response
Cover letter
Dear Editors,
Thank you very much for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions given by the reviewers and editors to improve the quality of our manuscript. It is our belief that the manuscript is substantially improved after making the suggested comments and reconstruction edits.
Following this letter are the comments given by the reviewer with our responses including where the necessary changes were made line by line in the manuscript which is marked with blue in the main body of the manuscript. All the co-authors participated in the revision of the manuscript and finally approved it for submission.
Hopefully, you will find our responses satisfactory and the manuscript will be acceptable for publication.
Best regards,
Ph.D, BATSUREN Dorjsuren
Senior Lecturer,
Department of Environment and Forest Engineering,
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences,
National University of Mongolia
Phone: + 976-11-77307730 ext 3208
Email: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Name of the study is „Changes in Water Surface Area of the Lake in the Steppe Region of Mongolia: A Case Study of Ugii Nuur Lake, Central Mongolia,“ but there are missing the basic hydrological characteristic of the study area. In such study it has to be stated at least the total annual precipitation amount value in mm and what is the inflow river discharge expressed in units.
Line 49: What does it means “few precipitation?“ Specify amount of precipitation as an annual rainfall.
Response: Response: Changes implemented as suggested. Thank you.
Thus, it has become an interesting issue to study the change of water resources in those regions since there are low total annual precipitation and few surface water distributions [4,5].
New line: 51-52
I did not see the precipitation specification in this answer. Please add this information. It is a key issue for the water resources study. Expression: “low total annual precipitation“ is not sufficient. It is a very general characteristic.
New line: 124-127
Would you be so kind to express: „daily river discharge data value“ ?
What are the average water balance data?
There are still units not in correct form, e.g. line 237: (m/sec)
% with space 38.2 % (Line 105) or without space 10% (Line 145)
Gaps: Z = -5.392 (Line 37), but Z=4.595 (Line 38). It has to be united in the whole manuscript.
Author Response
Cover letter
Dear Editors,
Thank you very much for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions given by the reviewers and editors to improve the quality of our manuscript. It is our belief that the manuscript is substantially improved after making the suggested comments and reconstruction edits.
Following this letter are the comments given by the reviewer with our responses including where the necessary changes were made line by line in the manuscript which is marked with purple in the main body of the manuscript.
All the co-authors participated in the revision of the manuscript and finally approved it for submission.
Hopefully, you will find our responses satisfactory and the manuscript will be acceptable for publication.
Best regards,
Ph.D, BATSUREN Dorjsuren
Senior Lecturer,
Department of Environment and Forest Engineering,
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences,
National University of Mongolia
Phone: + 976-11-77307730 ext 3208
Email: [email protected]
2020.04.20
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I do not have specific comments on the revised manuscript. My comments were addressed quite satisfactorily by the authors. Some editorial changes are requested to improve the writing style before publication.
Author Response
Cover letter
Dear Editors,
Thank you very much for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions given by the reviewers and editors to improve the quality of our manuscript. It is our belief that the manuscript is substantially improved after making the suggested comments and reconstruction edits.
Following this letter are the comments given by the reviewer with our responses including where the necessary changes were made line by line in the manuscript which is marked with purple in the main body of the manuscript.
All the co-authors participated in the revision of the manuscript and finally approved it for submission.
Hopefully, you will find our responses satisfactory and the manuscript will be acceptable for publication.
Best regards,
Ph.D, BATSUREN Dorjsuren
Senior Lecturer,
Department of Environment and Forest Engineering,
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences,
National University of Mongolia
Phone: + 976-11-77307730 ext 3208
Email: [email protected]
2020.04.20
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I am glad to see that authors made a good effort to improve the manuscript in the revised version following comments and suggestion provided by reviewers.
Author Response
Cover letter
Dear Editors,
Thank you very much for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions given by the reviewers and editors to improve the quality of our manuscript. It is our belief that the manuscript is substantially improved after making the suggested comments and reconstruction edits.
Following this letter are the comments given by the reviewer with our responses including where the necessary changes were made line by line in the manuscript which is marked with purple in the main body of the manuscript.
All the co-authors participated in the revision of the manuscript and finally approved it for submission.
Hopefully, you will find our responses satisfactory and the manuscript will be acceptable for publication.
Best regards,
Ph.D, BATSUREN Dorjsuren
Senior Lecturer,
Department of Environment and Forest Engineering,
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences,
National University of Mongolia
Phone: + 976-11-77307730 ext 3208
Email: [email protected]
2020.04.20
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
dear authors
the majority of the requirements have been answered except on two points. It may be a misunderstanding from my part.
I will leave the editor to determine the decision according the point of view of other reviewers.
BEST REGARDS
Author Response
Cover letter
Dear Editors,
Thank you very much for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions given by the reviewers and editors to improve the quality of our manuscript. It is our belief that the manuscript is substantially improved after making the suggested comments and reconstruction edits.
Following this letter are the comments given by the reviewer with our responses including where the necessary changes were made line by line in the manuscript which is marked with purple in the main body of the manuscript.
All the co-authors participated in the revision of the manuscript and finally approved it for submission.
Hopefully, you will find our responses satisfactory and the manuscript will be acceptable for publication.
Best regards,
Ph.D, BATSUREN Dorjsuren
Senior Lecturer,
Department of Environment and Forest Engineering,
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences,
National University of Mongolia
Phone: + 976-11-77307730 ext 3208
Email: [email protected]
2020.04.20
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
