Evaluation of Restoration Effect of Submerged Plant Community in Urban Rivers Replenished by Reclaimed Water

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is well-written and clear. It avoids extensive descriptions but presents the results straightforwardly. It is very practical, relying on parameters, analyses, and indices well-known from in literature. The study site is quite specific, but it might not be adequately introduced and contextualized for readers unfamiliar with it. However, the article is suitable for addressing the scientific question and practical level it aims for. It only requires further work to improve the contextual description and graphical presentation of Figures and Tables for enhanced clarity.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article on restoration effect evaluation is interesting. However, the following queries need to be addressed.

1. Please check the title carefully (if any amendment required).

2. Rewrite abstract. Results are not highlighted.

3. Line 33.....0. Introduction.....1. Introduction

4. Line 37.....Check spacing.....development[1-3]. Check such typos thorough out the manuscript. For example, Line 47.

5. In the Introduction section, the problems are discussed. However, there is no data or estimates for the described problems.

6. Please describe (Introduction section) how indicators or water eco-environment quality index are important.

7. Line 121.....Use of superscript km2

8. Line 127-129.....Give space before units.

9. Line 144....The analytical methods can be described briefly.

10. Statistical analysis should be written in the last of Materials and Methods section.

11. Table 3....Check the units properly.

12. Table 5....Write the probability level.

13. Strengthen the discussion. Very poor...currently.

14. Please elaborate 32 environmental factors as mentioned.

15. Rewrite conclusion following the results and recommendations.

16. Please check the reference section as per Journal's style.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors evaluated the restoration effect evaluation of submerged plant communities. Althogh the authors emphasized the the restoration effect has some uncertainty, the innovation is not enough. In addition, the methodology is too simple, and English language should be improved. Therefore, I think the manuscript can be rejected.

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

We very much appreciate your greatly valuable comments and suggestions for the improvement of our manuscript. We have carefully considered the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and suggestions

1. Abstract - needs rewriting. It does not inform what was the purpose of the work or what are the conclusions obtained from results.

2. The text needs a major linguistic revision. The authors commonly use the phrase "the restoration effect for urban rivers replenished by reclaimed water".

3. The chapter numbering should be corrected. Introduction should be number  with 1.

4. Latin names of plants should be written in italics.

5. The Materials and Methods chapter requires:

- provide information on the number of measurement points on each of the rivers under study

- explanation of what reclaimed water is in this case - e.g. whether it is from treated sewage

- systematization of what parameters were tested and to what extent and with what frequency

- provide the name and models of the apparatus used for analytical determinations of water and sediment quality parameters

- the measurement points should be numbered for each rivers.

6. The Results chapter should be merged with the Discussion

7. In the paper, the authors did not include any results from the determination of water quality parameters. It must be supplemented.

8. Complete the information on the statistical analysis of the results - how the calculations were made.

9. Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 - complete the information on which rivers the presented data refer to.

10. Table 5. Measurement data should be divided according to the studied rivers.

11. Line 322 - delete data for arsenic. There is no positive correlation here.

12. In the text of the work there is no discussion of the results, i.e. reference to the results of other researchers' work.

13. Conclusions and recommendations - require thorough editing; should be short and supported by the findings.  Authors should also state the limitations of their research.

14. References - format according to the requirements of the journal and remove spelling errors, e.g. in 35.

The biggest weakness of this work is the description of the measurement method and the presentation of the results. In the current version of the manuscript, they have no scientific value. The text of the work requires major revision and changes.

Comments and suggestions

1. Abstract - needs rewriting. It does not inform what was the purpose of the work or what are the conclusions obtained from results.

2. The text needs a major linguistic revision. The authors commonly use the phrase "the restoration effect for urban rivers replenished by reclaimed water".

3. The chapter numbering should be corrected. Introduction should be number  with 1.

4. Latin names of plants should be written in italics.

5. The Materials and Methods chapter requires:

- provide information on the number of measurement points on each of the rivers under study

- explanation of what reclaimed water is in this case - e.g. whether it is from treated sewage

- systematization of what parameters were tested and to what extent and with what frequency

- provide the name and models of the apparatus used for analytical determinations of water and sediment quality parameters

- the measurement points should be numbered for each rivers.

6. The Results chapter should be merged with the Discussion

7. In the paper, the authors did not include any results from the determination of water quality parameters. It must be supplemented.

8. Complete the information on the statistical analysis of the results - how the calculations were made.

9. Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 - complete the information on which rivers the presented data refer to.

10. Table 5. Measurement data should be divided according to the studied rivers.

11. Line 322 - delete data for arsenic. There is no positive correlation here.

12. In the text of the work there is no discussion of the results, i.e. reference to the results of other researchers' work.

13. Conclusions and recommendations - require thorough editing; should be short and supported by the findings.  Authors should also state the limitations of their research.

14. References - format according to the requirements of the journal and remove spelling errors, e.g. in 35.

The biggest weakness of this work is the description of the measurement method and the presentation of the results. In the current version of the manuscript, they have no scientific value. The text of the work requires major revision and changes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have revised the article considerably. However, some minor corrections can be checked:

i) Abstract can be improved.

ii) Check spacing: Give space before brackets in Table 5, i.e., before units in bracket.....Similarly, Figure 4.Correlation 

iii) Try to improve the quality and presentations of Figures. 

Minor editing is required.

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewers’ greatly valuable comments and suggestions for the improvement of our manuscript.For Reviewer 2’s comments and suggestions, we have further improved the abstract and the quality and presentations of our English. Meanwhile, we check our manuscript and give space before brackets.

Reviewer 3 Report

The quaulity has been improved.

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewers’ greatly valuable comments and suggestions for the improvement of our manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

I appreciate the changes made by the authors to the text of the manuscript. However, key information is still missing from the work. They are:

- the name and models of the apparatus used for analytical determinations of water and sediment quality parameters

- data from measurements of all water and sediment quality parameters. The authors did not include these results. In my opinion, they are necessary to validate the evaluation of restoration effect of submerged plant community in urban rivers replenished by reclaimed water.

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewers’ greatly valuable comments and suggestions for the improvement of our manuscript.For Reviewer 4’s comments and suggestions, we give the name of the apparatus used for water and sediment sampler. The data of main water and sediment quality parameters have also been added in the manuscript.