This manuscript develops a WSDR analytical framework based on the PLUS-InVEST model to quantify the impacts of climate change and human activities on water supply and demand patterns and their associated risks in the TRB. The study is complete and has some policy implications. However, there is significant potential to improve the words and figures. Specific questions are listed below.

Q1: The scientific issues are not clearly stated in the abstract. It is recommended that the authors focus on methodological refinement rather than the lack of research in a particular region. In terms of length, the abstract needs to be further refined. In addition, logically, whether water resources in the current drylands are in balance between supply and demand is not supported by relevant results. Therefore, it is not reasonable for the abstract to state that large-scale expansion of arable land breaks the balance between water supply and demand.

Q2: The introduction section needs to move quickly to the topic of the study. In the current manuscript, the first paragraph of the introduction describes the existence of a mismatch between water supply and demand, and the second paragraph describes the potential impacts of water mismatch. However, it is difficult for the reader to get through these two lengthy paragraphs to the main challenges and research questions that the article focuses on. Therefore, it is recommended that these two paragraphs be merged to provide a brief overview of the mismatch between water supply and demand and its impacts due to irrigated agriculture and climate change.

Q3: The manuscript focuses on water use in agriculture, but the excessive use of ‘human activities’ in the introduction may mislead the reader because human activities are diverse. Therefore, I suggest replacing ‘human activities’ with ‘agricultural activities’ in the third paragraph of the introduction to ensure that the introduction is centred on the impacts of climate change and agricultural activities on water resources.

Q4: There is a logical problem in the fourth paragraph of the introduction: the PLUS model, which is used to simulate land use, and the InVEST model, which is used to calculate ecosystem services, cannot be directly used to investigate the mechanisms by which regional water supply and demand responds to the combined effects of climate change and human activities. This may be due to a lack of logic. It is suggested to change it to ‘Explore the dynamics of regional water supply and demand under climate change and irrigated agriculture’.

Q5: The introduction of arid zones in the fifth paragraph of the introduction is incongruous because it comes out of nowhere. The arid zone is an undeniable mismatch between water supply and demand. The background of these studies should have been presented clearly in the first paragraph of the introduction. In addition, the literature review section, should focus on relevant studies in arid zones and incorporate the special characteristics of arid zones.

Q6: The methodology is sound, but the technical framework diagram of the study is so complex that it is difficult to obtain valid information. For example, the data pre-processing section could be simplified as the reader does not expect to get detailed information about the data in the diagram. Also, the section on scenario setting is too complex. It is recommended to describe the scenario preferences in one sentence. Note that the connotations of the abbreviations of the scenarios were not given before this, so please add them.

Q7: Figures 3, 4, Tables 3 and 5 are redundant for the main information of the manuscript and it is suggested to move them to the supplementary material. Tables 1 and 2 could be combined. Figure 1a is missing the compass. If the figure involves abbreviations for scenarios, please add the connotations of the abbreviations in all figure titles. Please standardize the style of the north pointer.

Q8: The discussion section has problems similar to the introduction section. When I read through the first two paragraphs of the discussion, I had a hard time finding water-related discourse. Most of the discourse is about land use change, urban and cropland expansion. Therefore, it is recommended to keep the first part of the discussion to water-related research contributions and model sensitivity explanations only.

Publisher’s note: the content of this comment was removed on 8 August 2025 since the comment was posted by mistake.

This manuscript developed a WSDR (Water Supply-Demand Risk) analytical framework based on the PLUS-InVEST model to investigate the water supply-demand risks under 24 climate-land use change scenarios in the Tailan River Basin (TRB), and to quantify the impacts of climate change and human activities on water supply-demand patterns and associated risks in the TRB. The study demonstrates a certain level of systematic analysis; however, substantial revisions are still needed in terms of textual presentation, results analysis, and discussion. The specific issues are as follows:

Q1:Further refine the scientific questions and highlight the key findings in the abstract.

Q2:The introduction is overly lengthy and should transition to the main topic more quickly. Moreover, it lacks a sufficient literature review on the limitations of existing water supply-demand studies and does not clearly articulate the novel contributions of this study.

Q3:The description of the study area is insufficient. For example, the size of the basin is not provided, so it is unclear whether the basin is representative. It should be clarified whether a single basin can reflect the general conditions of arid regions. In addition, it is recommended to include spatial distribution maps of land use, precipitation, temperature, and evapotranspiration in the appendix to help readers better understand the basin.

Q4:In the land use scenarios, the land conversion probabilities range from 5% to 30%, which is a considerable variation. What is the rationale behind setting such a wide range of probabilities? How much uncertainty do these different probabilities introduce into the results?

Q5:In the ecological protection scenario, only the conversion between other land types and construction land is considered. Why is the conversion between natural forests/grasslands and other land types not taken into account?

Q6:The figures should be made clearer. Please check whether all numbers and labels in the figures are explained to ensure that each figure is independently understandable. For example, what does the color bar in Figure 6 represent? What do the percentages in Figure 8 indicate?

Q7:Many of the statements in the results section lack data support and should avoid speculative or inferential language. For example, in line 399, the statement should be supported by relevant indicators quantifying land use structure. In line 403, the section does not analyze the driving factors of land use change—on what basis is the claim about cropland expansion made? In line 415, why is an external source cited—are the results derived from the data in this study? Are the statements in lines 454 and 470 supported by data?

Q8:The discussion lacks depth and should include more references. It is recommended to expand the discussion based on the study’s results, strengthen horizontal comparisons, and especially highlight similarities and differences with previous research.

Q9:Lines 579–581 state that the impact of climate change on water supply is far greater than that of land use change. However, based on the methodology, the climate scenarios and land use scenarios are not directly comparable. Is it appropriate to directly compare the magnitudes of their effects on water supply? The same concern applies to lines 598–601.

Q10:The methodology for identifying the driving factors influencing water supply, demand, and associated risks is not clearly described. The results appear to rely on the authors’ assumptions and lack adequate data support. For example, in lines 577–579, it is recommended to include figures or tables showing how climate, soil, and vegetation influence water yield.

Q11:The discussion section contains redundant content, with many statements unrelated to the core findings of the study. It lacks in-depth attribution and mechanistic analysis of the results, as well as horizontal comparison with relevant literature. For instance, Section 4.1 extensively discusses the importance of land use and reiterates the land use scenario results and ecological implications, but pays limited attention to the mechanisms by which land use change affects water supply-demand dynamics. It is recommended to delete or simplify this section. The analysis of the number of driving factors influencing the model could be combined with the uncertainty analysis.

Q12:Please verify whether the logic in lines 591–592 is incorrect. There may be an inconsistency or misinterpretation in this statement.

Q13:Provide supporting evidence for the statements made in lines 628–633. The manuscript does not appear to contain relevant research results or cited references to substantiate these claims.

Q14:Check whether the logic in lines 650–652 is flawed. The reasoning may be unclear or contradictory.

Q15:Streamline sentence expressions throughout the manuscript. Ensure that capitalization and punctuation are used correctly. For example, inconsistencies can be found in lines 54, 207, 210, 258, 357, and 476.