PCLM-D-24-00092

EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE AND LAND USE / LAND COVER CHANGE ON THE STREAMFLOW

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Shomre,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 03 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Steven L. Forman

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. Please upload all main figures as separate Figure files in .tif or .tif format only. For more information about how to convert and format your figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/figures

2. Please amend your Data Availability Statement and indicate where the data may be found.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

This is an interesting paper and pertinent to PLOS Climate, which outlines recent changes in discharge for the Gelena River, Ethopia with land use and land cover changes (LULCC) and climate change in the 21th century. The authors ably use a variety of data sets to constrain land cover classes, DEMs, and climate variability placed into spatial and temporal context in a series of models from GCMs (RCPs 4.5 and 8.5 used), a regional climate model and finally the SWAT catchment model, to address potential changes in river discharge. The final analysis is grim, with river flow reduced by 30-80% by the end of century. However, there is an important paradox revealed by this paper, which may be significant. Currently, ca. 2020 the Gelana River has substantial increase (5-25%) river discharge related to land cover changes, including agricultural and the built environment expansion. However, future projections with RCPs 4.5 and 8.5 indicate a large decrease river discharge (20-80%), with changes in LULCC having a small, secondary effect. Thus, the authors should asses if this paradox is real or an effect of model bias from errors in predicting the LULCC, as shown in the 2022 model incongruities, and biases in downscaling precipitation and temp. fields from a GCM to a regional model, and final with parameterization of the SWAT model. There needs to be a clear and unbiased assessment of the model errors and insensitivity to extreme precipitation events, which are common in a monsoon climate. A water balance approach for the 21st century and for future scenarios may provide clearer definition of the changing weight of hydrologic factors, such as evapotranspiration, LULCC, seasonality of precipitation and broader groundwater conditions. Any modeling of future climate and stream discharge changes needs to firmly assess the mechanistic changes in the ITCZ-Summer Monsoon which is a substantial source of precipitation. How well is ITCZ and the Indian Ocean dipole dynamics included in the models? I and other reviewers have supplied extensive review comments in the text. Please respond on separate document to each one of the comments and specify changes made to address each comment. Below I list a number of aspects that need careful attention and revisions.

1. The prose is wordy and repetitive in many places. Please carefully proofread this paper to strengthen and improve clarity of prose, as indicated by the reviews. Please revist the introduction, conclusions and abstract.

2. The referencing is incomplete and dated, particularly in the introduction, which needs to be carefully rewritten.

3. The tables need further attention with many entries unclear with abbreviations or as URLs. Specifically, there is also inconsistencies in presentation land use classes, with entries as abbreviations and fully spelled out, the latter is preferred.

4. The figures could use some clarifications. Figure 1 should include a larger context inset showing fully the catchment location in Ethiopia and for East Africa; and in relation to the Indian Ocean and sweep of the ITCZ. Give the reader with full climate context.

5. Figure 2 and 3 should be on separate pages and each subfigure should be at the same scale. There is much white space on these subfigures and repetition. The location with lat. and long could be shown once, and the scale and key, as well. These changes would enlarge the mapped LULCC to ease the readers assessment of changes.

6. Figure 4 also could use modification to reduce white space and the title, which is given in the caption. The horizontal time scale is unclear and a bit difficult to read; an alternative is to use a simple number of days 1, 2, 3 and 4 and give the start and end dates. Also, to show clearly the veracity of model output add an x-y plot with known values and model values of discharge; and evaluate with simple statistics such as r-squared and p values.

7. There needs to be a concluding figure or summary figure that shows either a water balance calculation for 20th & 21st century instrumental record and for RCP4.5 &8.5 showing the coupling and decoupling of land use changes as a dominant driver of river discharge, versus climate as the controlling force of river discharge in the future, 21st century. Critically evaluate this result as well in the text.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria ? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Editor,

The manuscript entitled “EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE AND LAND USE / LAND COVER CHANGE ON THE STREAMFLOW” This primary objective of the current study is to identify the potential impacts of current and future land use/land cover, as well as climate change, on stream flow. However, the authors must address a major concern before the manuscript may be considered for publication. The following are my observations on these topics.

• Authors should mention the full form in the paper initial appearance.

• In the Manuscript the figure visibility is less it must be changed.

Abstract:

• In the abstract, authors should keep the material flowing. It's also a good idea to highlight the most noteworthy findings and novelties.

• There is no issue statement or research gap.

Introduction:

• The introduction portion should be strengthened. The existing research gap and why the study is necessary.

• Rewrite the full paragraph “For analyzing clear catchment-level information and in order to provide appropriate responses for ……a proven physical model that is frequently used to manage water resources in various catchments [34].

Data and Methodology

• Rewrite the Data sources and acquisition section

• Give proper explanation in this Image categorization and precision evaluation section

• Results:

• Explanation of the result should be rewritten concisely.

• Rewrite this section Analysis of land use/land covers (LULC) change.

• Rewrite this section “Evaluation of the separate Impact of Land Use/ land Cover change on streamflow”.

• All the figures must be correct the visibility of the figure is not good.

Conclusions:

• It is possible merge the points 1 and 2.

• Rewrite the conclusion portion.

Reviewer #2: I appreciate that you investigated the effect of LULCC and CC separately and combined.

The appraoch is not really innovative but well done. in several case s, you need to formulate more exactly and you have to discuss the results in a more informed way. The data are available from the model.

The method section should follow the work flow.

The conclusion section must be re-written completely. At the moment it is just a redundant summary.

I gave detailed comments in the attached paper draft.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PCLM-D-24-00092_reviewer.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: PCLM-D-24-00092.slf.pdf

PCLM-D-24-00092R1

EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE AND LAND USE / LAND COVER CHANGE ON THE STREAMFLOW

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Shomre,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 21 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Steven L. Forman

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

This paper is of high significance with a robust analysis using RCM integrated with SWAT hydrologic model to understand the effects of LULC and future climate variability on water availability in an urbanizing catchment in Ethiopia. The numeric analysis and interpretations are credible, but the prose is dense and in places difficult to understand. I have spent the better part of two days editing the manuscript to increase reader understanding, my edits are attached. Please take greater care in syntax, sentence construction and clarity of explanations. Also, there are too many places where a word is missing, or the usage is confounding. This manuscript needs careful proofreading.

Also, the response to review comments is too brief or lacking, with insufficient details that show exactly how the manuscript has been changed or corrected. The response to comments is often the repeated phrase of "Accepted, it is done in the revised manuscript" and is insufficient to assess the changes in the manuscript. Please respond to each comment, indicate exactly what are the changes by line number for the prose so reviewers and editors can easily understand how the manuscript was changed. A sound approach is to compare the original text with the new text. In places the response is a narrative to argue against the comment, rather than incorporate new information or an alternative perspective. Two reviewers and editors have spent a considerable amount of time on this manuscript to improve the presentation and significance in which the authors have yet to fully responded and resubmit a fully attended manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Revised manuscript (1).slf.docx

EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE AND LAND USE / LAND COVER CHANGE ON THE STREAMFLOW

PCLM-D-24-00092R2

Dear Dr. Shomre,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE AND LAND USE / LAND COVER CHANGE ON THE STREAMFLOW' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Climate.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact climate@plos.org .

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Climate.

Best regards,

Steven L. Forman

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

***********************************************************

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for your additional attention to the review comments and in-text comments. This manuscript is much clearer and further highlights the significance of your research. I recommend acceptance.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):