Global Sensitivity of Penman–Monteith Reference Evapotranspiration to Climatic Variables in Mato Grosso, Brazil
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear editor:
After evaluating the manuscript “Global sensitivity of Penman-Monteith reference evapotranspiration to climatic variables in Mato Grosso, Brazil”, my decision is: “Minor revision”.
The manuscript justification does not provide grounds to convince the reader that the research is relevant. The problem is not clearly presented, thus, it becomes difficult to understand the importance and relevance of this work. In short, the introduction is not enough to understand the objective of the study. In short, I would like to know the specific contributions of a research of this nature.
The methodology is incomplete, it needs further clarification of the proposed procedures. It is noticed that a lot of basic information is missing and in the way it is presented, the reader would not be able to replicate the experiment. In fact, I think it is even difficult to understand whether the methodology meets the objectives of the study.
The discussion of the manuscript needs to be enriched. The results were not discussed and justified in the light of science.
Other problems that were identified and that justify my decision are presented below:
Line 11: In FAO 56 the acronym of ETo is with the letter “o” instead of the number zero. Present the acronym in the same way as shown in Figure 3.
Line 23: Was there an expectation of a conclusion other than that?
Line 74: What is the hypothesis of your study?
Line 90: What treatments did the data receive before being used? In this item, the authors must present the percentage of missing data.
Line 99: The longitude line is LON. Furthermore, I don't see the need to insert these acronyms in the table, since the full names fit in the table cells.
Line 101: Increase the font size of the latitudes and longitudes in Figure 1. Increase the font and resolution of the station numbers. Unable to view codes.
Line 104: How were the maps generated in relation to the interpolation of the results generated from the point weather station?
Line 114: Wind speed at INMET meteorological stations is measured at a height of 10 m. What procedures were used to arrive at the wind speed measured at a height of 2 m?
Line 165: The figure should be longer to increase the scale of the ordinate axis. As it stands, the idea of the magnitude of values is undermined.
Line 183: What is that sentence?
Line 184: Increase the font size of the words in Figure 3.
Line 309: What are the weaknesses of this research? What are the necessary future studies?
Line 351: Outdated references, there are no references in the last two years.
Given the above, some inconsistencies are noticed and my recommendation is “Minor revision”.
I encourage authors to submit a new version of the manuscript and, if they agree, I would like to receive responses to all the considerations that they disagreed with or did not meet!
Good job.
Ad hoc reviewer
Author Response
Dear editor:
We appreciate the opportunity to submit and evaluate the article Global sensitivity of Penman-Monteith reference evapotranspiration to climatic variables in Mato Grosso, Brazil”, at EARTH. We remain at your disposal for the continuation of this process.
Responses to REVIEWER 1
The discussion of the manuscript needs to be enriched. The results were not discussed and justified in the light of science.
Other problems that were identified and that justify my decision are presented below:
In general, improvements were made in the introduction and methodology according to the suggestions of the two reviewers; however, as none of them presented suggestions of what needed to be improved in the discussion, no significant changes were made in this section, as there were no indications of what needed to be improved.
Line 11: In FAO 56 the acronym of ETo is with the letter “o” instead of the number zero. Present the acronym in the same way as shown in Figure 3.
Response: The acronym of ETo in the text and figures was changed.
Line 23: Was there an expectation of a conclusion other than that?
Response: The main conclusion was rewritten to understand its contribution better. Additionally, we added a new introduction paragraph (lines 47-61) demonstrating that the domain variables impacting ETo fluctuations vary in different locations, justifying the need for the region's sensitivity analyses.
Line 74: What is the hypothesis of your study?
The general hypothesis was that solar radiation and temperature were the main variables that influenced ETo fluctuations. Although we do not understand that it is necessary to include this hypothesis in the text, a paragraph was inserted at the beginning of the introduction discussing results found by other authors, indicating the different possibilities of results for this hypothesis.
Line 90: What treatments did the data receive before being used? In this item, the authors must present the percentage of missing data.
Response: The issue was addressed in the section 2.2: Data quality control and homogeneity
Line 99: The longitude line is LON. Furthermore, I don't see the need to insert these acronyms in the table since the full names fit in the table cells.
Response: the table was updated.
Line 101: Increase the font size of the latitudes and longitudes in Figure 1. Increase the font and resolution of the station numbers. Unable to view codes.
Response: Updated with bigger font.
Line 104: How were the maps generated in relation to the interpolation of the results generated from the point weather station?
Response: The issue was addressed in the section 2.5: Spatial Interpolation
Line 114: Wind speed at INMET meteorological stations is measured at a height of 10 m. What procedures were used to arrive at the wind speed measured at a height of 2 m?
Response: The issue was addressed in lines 95-97 and 103-104.
Line 165: The figure should be longer to increase the scale of the ordinate axis. As it stands, the idea of the magnitude of values is undermined.
Response: Figure was rearranged to increase the ordinate axis.
Line 183: What is that sentence?
Response: There was a typing error; I added the sentence into a new line. It was rewritten and corrected.
Line 184: Increase the font size of the words in Figure 3.
Response: Updated with bigger font.
Line 351: Outdated references, there are no references in the last two years.
Response: Added and updated the paper with more recent references.
Reviewer 2 Report
This article deals with the sensitivity of Penman-Monteith reference evapotranspiration to climatic variables. The article is well-prepared and has some interesting results for hydrologist and climatologist. My suggestions prior to publication are:
Line 19. In the abstract some numerical results are necessary.
Line 38. Highlighting the importance of selecting appropriate evapotranspiration methods, as well as referencing recent literature on the subject, is crucial. The choice of evapotranspiration method significantly impacts the calculation of hydro-climatological parameters. Therefore, the selection process must be carried out diligently (https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/hydrology10030064, https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.07.020)
Line 73. Are there any other approach investigates the sensitivity analysis of reference evapotranspiration to climatic variables. A brief literature review should be mentioned herein.
Line 90. Please provide a brief description of the meteorological station instruments (type of sensor, accuracy etc.)
Line 121-135. If the original method was used without any modification this part it is recommended to condense.
Line 167. The symbols used for the wet and dry seasons are similar and indistinguishable, leading to confusion. It is suggested that these symbols be changed to avoid ambiguity. I propose to the authors to use light and dark version of the same color.
Line 210. Increase the pies and the labels.
Author Response
We appreciate the opportunity to submit and evaluate the article Global sensitivity of Penman-Monteith reference evapotranspiration to climatic variables in Mato Grosso, Brazil”, at EARTH. We remain at your disposal for the continuation of this process.
Line 19. In the abstract some numerical results are necessary.
Response: The abstract was updated with some numerical results.
Line 38. Highlighting the importance of selecting appropriate evapotranspiration methods, as well as referencing recent literature on the subject, is crucial. The choice of evapotranspiration method significantly impacts the calculation of hydro-climatological parameters. Therefore, the selection process must be carried out diligently (https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/hydrology10030064, https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.07.020)
Response: A better review in the impacts of how selecting appropriate evapotranspiration methods can impact hydro-climatological parameters was added in the lines 34-83.
Line 73. Are there any other approaches that investigates the sensitivity analysis of reference evapotranspiration to climatic variables. A brief literature review should be mentioned herein.
We appreciate the reviewer's comment on adding a review of other sensitivity analysis methods to the introduction. However, we do not add it for 2 main reasons. 1) there is already a brief review on local and global sensitivity methods and their differences/advantages/disadvantages (lines 80-90) and, 2) if more methods were explored, we understand that the text would deviate a little from the defined objective and would be too large and scattered.
Line 90. Please provide a brief description of the meteorological station instruments (type of sensor, accuracy etc.)
The settings of the automatic weather stations on the National Institute of Meteorology - INMET network are described at http://www.cemtec.ms.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Nota_Tecnica-Rede_estacoes_INMET.pdf. All data is public and can be obtained at https://portal.inmet.gov.br/paginas/catalogoaut
The details of the sensors, calibration factors and other information would not add to the article.
Line 121-135. If the original method was used without any modification this part it is recommended to condense.
Response: The Sobol methodology was condensed and better explained.
Line 167. The symbols used for the wet and dry seasons are similar and indistinguishable, leading to confusion. It is suggested that these symbols be changed to avoid ambiguity. I propose to the authors to use light and dark version of the same color.
Response: figures updated.
Line 210. Increase the pies and the labels.
Response: The figure was updated as suggested.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is accepted
