All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
I congratulate the authors for the effort put into this paper! The manuscript is significantly improved; therefore, I recommend accepting it in its current form!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jörg Oehlmann, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
okay
okay
okay
for L24, just use wetland or condition, not both
The review of your paper is now complete, the Reviewers' reports are below. As you can see, the Reviewers present important points of criticism and a series of recommendations. We kindly ask you to consider all comments and revise the paper accordingly in order to respond fully and in detail to the Reviewers' recommendations. If this process is completed thoroughly, the paper will be acceptable.
In the revised version, authors already answered and responded to my concerns, and now it is more readable.
Ok
ok
minor:
L24 'Without having data on the water level, velocity, discharge and so on..' change to ‘in ungauged wetland/condition
L26 remove ‘moreover’
L46 US dollars to US$
L70-73 merge with next paragraph
The work is interesting, has a clear degree of originality, and is appropriate for publication in the journal after performing a major and very careful revision. Nevertheless, it needs some further improvements. In general, there are still some occasional grammar errors throughout the manuscript, especially the article "the," "a," and "an" are missing in many places; please make spellchecking in addition to these minor issues. The reviewer has listed some specific comments that might help the authors further enhance the manuscript's quality.
1. Specific Comments
• Overall, the Abstract section is not giving any information about methodology, results, conclusion, and recommendations as it should be. I suggest the authors to remove generic lines and present the strong statements and novelty of article. The abstract is written in qualitative sentences. It is necessary to modify and rewrite based on the most important quantity results from this research. The abstract should be redesigned. You should avoid using acronyms in the abstract and insert the work's main conclusion.
• You have used many abbreviations in the text. From this perspective, an Index of Notations and Abbreviations would be beneficial for a better understanding of the proposed work. Furthermore, please check carefully if all the abbreviations and notations considered in work are explained for the first time when they are used, even if these are considered trivial by the authors. The paper should be accessible to a wide audience. Furthermore, it will make sense to include also the notations in this index.
• The objectives should be more explicitly stated.
• The Introduction section must be written better. The research gap should be explained clearly along with the necessity for the conducted research work.
• What is the novelty of this work?
• It is better to improve your contributions which are not so clear to show the advantage of your work.
• The novelty of this work must be clearly addressed and discussed in Introduction section.
• The methodology limitation should be mentioned.
Many equations are presented in the paper, and most look OK. However, please check carefully whether all equations are necessary and whether the quantities involved are properly explained. Also, some equations need references.
• Results
• This section is well written.
• Discussion
• Overall, the discussion part is weak. The Discussion should summarize the manuscript's main finding(s) in the context of the broader scientific literature and address any study limitations or results that conflict with other published work.
• Conclusion
• Some future works should be added to your conclusion.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
“Data-driven models for flood prediction in Napahai karst wetland”
In this revised manuscript, authors try to use precipitation and remote sensing data to predict
Napahai wetlands floods, which seem to be interesting, and also show us local flood management in terms of prediction accuracy and interpretability. However, though wetland mainly depend on local precipitation, it also correlated with runoff input and other source supplement. In addition, I can not more scientific problem and hypothesis in this manuscript, and only show some based monitor data or remote sensing data.
Some comments as follows:
1. The language on this manuscript needs to be repolished by a fluent English speaker. Please submit the manuscript with double space.
2. In introduction, authors should not conclude general question, but need focus on the related progress on the wetland are responds to climatic change and which the important scientific difficulty is. What scientific hypothesis you advanced?
3. In my opinion, the figures and tables in this manuscript need further be improved and supplemented more data to those figures and tables. I have no more comment about discussion and results, because I can not read more useful information and conclusion.
In methods and results, authors only provide rainfall as one indicator, but not consider runoff and temperature or other runoff input impact on wetland change. Especially, author need make a statistic on wetland area change at different period, and then discuss their driving mechanism.
Decisions are not made based on any subjective determination of impact, degree of advance, novelty or being of interest to only a niche audience.
my comments in pdf file
my comments in pdf file
my comments in pdf file
my comments in pdf file
Please consider the reviewers' comments carefully.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
The wetland flood prediction model is a topic that is increasingly interested in being studied. As the authors have explained a large part of the population lives in wetlands in this view every article in this field is an added value.
The authors have done a good job, but not enough in order to have reliable and referable results in the future. The number of initial data in this study/studies is relatively large, that is why it is necessary to explain how much of this data has been used, and at the same time which one of the initial data has the highest reliability and which ones need further interpretation.
Research ideas, Original data collection, and Empirical model construction are the essential/main part of this article, if the mentioned above parts of this paper are not explained in detail and compared with at least some similar recent work then the results may be questionable.
R square value of linear regression is 0.58 and that of decision tree 0.69, in both cases the accuracy/goodness is not high. The authors have tried to explain the reasons resulting from these findings however they are not detailed and there is not a single comparison with previous works.
The language and the text of the paper have to be improved/reorganized if there would be a decision for this article to be published.
Research ideas, Original data collection, and Empirical model construction are the essential/main part of this article. It is explained in the general comments the works performed in this study have been vast, especially for the last 2 decades. So the authors should have explained and taken into consideration the following.
1. Research ideas
a. What is their research idea closed to
b. Some of the articles that have used the same/similar idea
c. Some of the articles that have used the different/ideas
d. Reasoning why the authors have believed their idea could result in better findings
2. Original data collection
a. Access to original data
b. The decision to group the original data in reliable and not reliable ones
c. Methodology of processing the data before making them part of the empirical models
3. Empirical model construction
a. Selection of the empirical model (what are the fundamentals and literature review done by the authors in order to choose the 2 proposed models
b. Limitation of these models regarding the specific topic
c. What have the authors done in order to minimize the errors in the findings
It is essential to reorganize the research idea together with the empirical models and at the final stage of the research to propose a wetland flood prediction model that better fits the analyzed area rather than a comparison of the two models their selves.
The language and the organization of the text have to be improved/reorganized if there would be a decision for this article to be published.
“A karst wetland flood prediction model: A case study of the Napahai Wetland, Yunnan, China”
This study wants to simulate the open water area (OWA) of the Napahai karst wetland through remote sensing as the starting point to describe its flood characteristics using the local daily precipitation and the 1987–2018 rainy season, which maybe is interesting. However, it is very difficult to understand the words in this manuscript, so I suggest this manuscript need be polished by a fluent English speaker. Some comments as follows:
1. I think authors need rewrite the introduction. You did not collect what different researcher do, but you need conclude their research and upgrade the mechanism on karst wetland. Moreover, I even did not know what authors want to do and what your hypothesis is.
2. Method section, if authors have sampled in the Napahai Wetland? It looks you did not test and calibrate the simulated results by model.
3. It lacks of enough discussion linked with the area and water source change in in the Napahai Wetland.
4. There were very low-quality figures and tables.
No data descriptiton and uncentainity.
No provide
No
I think the knowledge gap needs to be better explained. Also, the authors should explain why wetland karst matters. Instead, authors more focused on wetland in general that makes the manuscript does not have strong background for the research. Limited cited literature (such as in L53) related the topics addressed confirms this flaw.
Authors also shall focus how to deliver the message clearly as in current form seem lack coherency among paragraphs.
I don’t understand what the meaning this phrase ’precipitation is a stable and reliable data source’ (L78). In all hydrological modeling, precipitation is the main input data as clearly stated in L80-81.
The last paragraph of the intro is confusing; what kind of message is like to deliver? Also, it didn’t clear where is the authors idea and which ones is not (refers to citation)
I think in the current form, the manuscript needs substantial revision on writing style and structuring the texts. Further, the manuscript lack of discussion why the research matters to give the readers a sense of worth findings, and how the findings differ with others.
L119 ‘… the once- …’ what is it?
L 125 Research ideas?
L157 Data editing or data manipulation?
L204-218 is for Method section
L221 there was not any method related to suffering from wetland flood.
L262 challenging?
no comment
no comments
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.