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 you on the acceptance of this article for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jörg Oehlmann, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
Dear Dr. Xiao, I ask you to enter the dimensions recommended by reviewers.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
The authors have written this article with full professionalism, and I appreciate the way the whole article is written.
-
-
1. Check lines 58-60.
2. Must check line no 64-66, is the value 0.5mm correct?
3. Check paragraph 97-103. Need refinement.
4. Write again lines no 104-107, 118-119.
5. Why para of line no 132-140 written? Is there any necessity to write this? Check lines 141-143.
6. Needed more clarity on lines no 231-232, which is regarding the M value set to 100.
• The manuscript is well structured, follows the standard organization (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions), and includes relevant references.
• The English writing, while technically correct, suffers from clarity issues: long sentences, inconsistent use of mathematical symbols, and minor typographical errors (e.g., characters “ý”, “ÿ” in equations).
• Some figures are not properly inserted (“<Figure X here please>”), and captions are not sufficiently descriptive.
• The scientific context is adequate, but the introduction should more explicitly highlight the knowledge gap addressed.
Suggestions:
• Submit the manuscript to professional English editing and standardize mathematical notation.
• Reorganize figures and tables, ensuring proper resolution and detailed captions.
• Synthesize the introduction to clearly emphasize the originality of the study compared to previous work.
• • The authors collected data covering a considerable period, which is of utmost importance in hydrological studies. Furthermore, they present valuable results that help raise awareness of the need to preserve vegetation in river basins. The research objective is clear: to assess the precipitation–runoff relationship in a small watershed using EEMD, DFA, and MF-DCCA.
• Methods are described in detail, including equations, but in some sections, there is an excess of mathematical formalism without a clear connection to the hydrological application.
• The combined use of EEMD and MF-DCCA is appropriate, but the rationale behind their selection is not sufficiently discussed compared to alternative methods.
• The data section presents solid sources (local observations, CHM_PRE, NDVI/MODIS, DEM, soil types), but the temporal coverage (2017–2022) needs better justification, as this is a relatively short period.
Suggestions:
• Simplify the methodological section, emphasizing how each technique addresses the research question.
• Include a flowchart summarizing the analytical workflow.
• Provide stronger justification for the chosen time period and discuss potential biases from seasonal or interannual variability.
• The results are consistent: they identify long-term persistence in runoff but not in precipitation, as well as clear vegetation effects on water retention.
• Robustness checks (shuffling and phase randomization) strengthen the reliability of the analysis.
• However, the discussion remains mostly descriptive, with limited comparisons to other studies. Critical connections to the broader international literature are lacking.
• The conclusions are consistent with the findings but should more clearly emphasize the new scientific contributions.
Suggestions:
• Expand the comparative discussion with findings from other regions and studies.
• Better explore practical implications (e.g., forest management, ecological restoration, adaptation to extreme events).
• Highlight the novelty of integrating multifractal methods with vegetation dynamics as the key contribution of the paper.
This manuscript addresses an important topic in hydrology and watershed science, presenting robust methods and a relevant case study. However, before publication, improvements are needed in three main areas:
1. English editing and symbol standardization.
2. Clarity in methodology and presentation of results (figures and tables).
3. Stronger comparative discussion and clearer evidence of originality.
TITLE: I believe vegetation is missing, as it appears in one of the main conclusions.
ABSTRACT
Include the interactions caused by vegetation reduction: increased runoff, reduced infiltration, increased sediment production, among others. I missed mentioning the problems that can be caused by the removal of this vegetation.
RESULTS: In the summary of the results, it is appropriate to characterize the typical precipitation regime in spring and summer, since this is a characteristic that can change depending on the region, and an explanation can facilitate the reader's interpretation.
INTRODUCTION
The introduction is well-constructed and includes references to other studies. However, in my opinion, it is too long. I believe some of these citations could be removed because they do not directly contribute to the central theme, and others could be moved to the discussion section. The closing of the introduction could include a section to emphasize the importance of this study academically and for the study region, to enhance the work.
37-44 and 45-53 Reference? 45- "Regional climate change will have different short-term and long-term impacts on small 46 watershed runoff." Which?
54- Which interactions?
60- Which watershed characteristics?
145- Do not use the text in the first person (we), replace it with..." the Quxi River was analyzed in this case study...".
MATERIALS & METHODS
Study area
157- Include the name of the country; many readers may not know where "the southwest part of Zhongxian County, Chongqing" is.
Data sources
177- Detail how these data are obtained by the station. Are they field data, empirical, or automatic? How far is the station from the studied region?
Methods
Align the equation numbers. Call out the equations in the text.
Overall Assessment
The manuscript provides solid data, an appropriate methodological approach, and relevant results. With the revisions suggested above, the article will be suitable for publication.
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.