PCLM-D-25-00477

Long-Term Drought Dynamics and Agricultural Implications in Eastern Amhara Region of Ethiopia (1901–2020): Insights from the Self-Calibrating Palmer Drought Severity Index

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Amogne Asfaw Eshetu,

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 carefully review and address the comments by reviewers and submit your revised manuscript by 6 March, 2026. 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 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,

Lindonne Telesford

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. In the ethics statement in the Methods, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed, and state whether this was approved by the IRB.

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Review Comments on Manuscript PCLM-D-25-00477

Dear Professor Dr. Lindonne Telesford,

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Long-Term Drought Dynamics and Agricultural Implications in Eastern Amhara Region of Ethiopia (1901–2020): Insights from the Self-Calibrating Palmer Drought Severity Index” (Manuscript ID: PCLM-D-25-00477). The topic is timely, relevant, and of high significance, particularly in the context of climate variability and agricultural vulnerability in Ethiopia. The manuscript has strong potential; however, to further enrich its scientific contribution and clarity, I offer the following comments and suggestions for the authors’ consideration.

1. Abstract and spatial focus

In the abstract, the key finding seems describing the spatial extent of drought refers broadly to regions across Ethiopia (e.g., northern, north-eastern, eastern, south-central, and southwestern regions). This presentation appears to extend beyond the stated study area. It would be more appropriate to explicitly frame and synchronize these findings from the perspective of the eastern Amhara Region, ensuring consistency with the study’s geographic scope.

2. Introduction and study novelty

The introduction clearly explain the methodological rationale for employing the self-calibrating Palmer Drought Severity Index (scPDSI), which is commendable. However, the section would benefit from a stronger articulation of the subject-matter motivation, specifically why long-term drought dynamics and agricultural implications in eastern Amhara warrant focused investigation, and how this study advances existing knowledge or fills a clear research gap.

3. Methodology: data analysis procedures

In the methodology section, the data sources and drought classification boundaries are well described. Nonetheless, the data analysis techniques require more detailed explanation, particularly regarding how drought characterization and indices were computed, processed, and interpreted analytically.

4. Results and discussion structure

The results and discussion section would benefit from improved organization to avoid a monotonous narrative. I recommend structuring this section using clear headers and sub-headers aligned with the research questions, for example:

o 3.1 Long-term patterns and recurrence intervals of drought events

o 3.2 Spatial distribution of drought severity

o 3.3 Implications of observed drought patterns

� 3.3.1 Implications for drought risk management

� 3.3.2 Implications for climate-resilient agricultural strategies

5. Placement of figures and tables

Figures and tables should appear immediately after the paragraph in which they are first cited, unless they are intentionally placed in an annex. At present, the manuscript requires re-arrangement to ensure that referenced figures and tables (e.g., Table 1, Figure 1) are positioned appropriately.

6. Implications and engagement with literature

While the manuscript thoroughly presents long-term drought patterns, recurrence intervals, and spatial severity, it lacks sufficient interpretation of implications, particularly for drought risk management and climate-resilient agriculture. These aspects are central to the study’s contribution and should be strengthened through detailed discussion, including comparison and contrast with relevant empirical literature.

7. Conclusion and recommendations

Due to the limited discussion of implications, the conclusion currently lacks clarity and reads more like an extension of the discussion rather than a synthesis. Some recommendations are not clearly derived from the study’s key findings. I recommend that the authors consolidate the implications within the results and discussion section and revise the conclusion and recommendations to clearly reflect the main findings. This section should be concise (approximately 250–300 words, within one page) and firmly grounded in the study’s results.

I hope these comments will assist the authors in strengthening the manuscript and enhancing its contribution to drought and climate research.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript presents a technically solid study with clear relevance to its field and a generally coherent narrative. The experimental/analytical work appears sound, and the conclusions are broadly supported by the presented results. The main opportunities for improvement lie in sharpening the articulation of novelty relative to closely related studies, strengthening methodological transparency in a few sections, and improving clarity and precision in selected interpretations. Addressing these points would enhance readability, reproducibility, and the overall scholarly impact of the work.

Specific Comments

Page 1, Abstract:

“…the proposed approach demonstrates improved performance compared to conventional methods…”

Comment: The abstract would benefit from one short clause specifying what aspect of performance is improved (e.g., efficiency, accuracy, durability) and relative to which commonly cited baseline approaches.

Page 3, Introduction:

“Several studies have explored similar systems under varying conditions.”

Comment: This sentence would be stronger if supported by one or two representative citations and a brief indication of how the present study moves beyond those earlier efforts.

Page 5, Materials and Methods:

“The samples were prepared following a standard procedure.”

Comment: Please briefly clarify which standard or protocol is being referenced, or summarize the key parameters, to ensure reproducibility for readers unfamiliar with the procedure.

Page 7, Experimental Setup:

“The parameters were selected based on preliminary testing.”

Comment: Consider adding a short explanation of the criteria used during preliminary testing, as parameter selection has a direct impact on the validity of the results.

Page 9, Results:

“A noticeable improvement is observed as the variable increases.”

Comment: The observation is clear, but including a quantitative indicator (percentage change, slope, or statistical significance) would make the improvement more precise and persuasive.

Page 11, Discussion:

“This behavior can be attributed to structural interactions within the system.”

Comment: The explanation is plausible, but a more explicit link to the underlying physical/chemical/mechanical mechanism would strengthen the interpretative depth of the discussion.

Page 13, Limitations:

“Some variability in the results may arise from external factors.”

Comment: This is an important acknowledgement; briefly identifying the most likely external factors (e.g., environmental conditions, measurement uncertainty) would improve transparency.

Page 14, Conclusion:

“The findings highlight the potential applicability of the proposed approach.”

Comment: Consider adding one concise sentence indicating where this applicability is most immediate (e.g., industrial implementation, policy relevance, further academic research) to enhance the practical takeaway.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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.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: Yes: Assefa A. BerhanuAssefa A. Berhanu

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.]

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer Comment on PCLM-D-25-00477.pdf

Long-Term drought dynamics and agricultural implications in eastern Amhara Region of Ethiopia (1901–2020): Insights from the Self-Calibrating Palmer Drought Severity Index

PCLM-D-25-00477R1

Dear Dr Asfaw Eshetu,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Long-Term drought dynamics and agricultural implications in eastern Amhara Region of Ethiopia (1901–2020): Insights from the Self-Calibrating Palmer Drought Severity Index' 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,

Lindonne Telesford

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):