Study on Water Quality Change Trend and Its Influencing Factors from 2001 to 2021 in Zuli River Basin in the Northwestern Part of the Loess Plateau, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Autors,
Interesting article. Interesting and relevant research has been done, but the article needs to be rewritten.
The sampling scheme is missing.
I suggest organising the methodological part as follows:
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area (map, sampling scheme and site description and hydrological characteristics of the river. What is the annual discharge of the river?)
2.2.Climatic conditions (precipitation temperature, indicating where the data were obtained)
2.3.Water Quality Assessment Standards, indicating which water quality indicators were tested, which standards were applied and the date on which water samples were taken.
2.4 Presentation of Pollution Sources. Indication of the methods used to determine the intensity of economic activities in the catchment.
2.4 Statistical Analyses. Indication of which statistical programs are used for specific indicators.
Table 1 is not required if you describe in the methodology which water quality indicators were investigated.
The results sections cannot start with figures or tables. An introductory sentence with a reference is necessary.
Unclear what is in Table 2 for CTD and CV?
There are only a few lines in the discussion section - everything else that is presented is results.
The discussion needs to compare the results with those of other researchers and explain why the results are the way they are.
Author Response
We appreciate your valuable comments on my manuscript，and have revised the manuscript according to your comments.
I suggest organising the methodological part as follows:
- Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area (map, sampling scheme and site description and hydrological characteristics of the river. What is the annual discharge of the river?)
2.2.Climatic conditions (precipitation temperature, indicating where the data were obtained)
2.3.Water Quality Assessment Standards, indicating which water quality indicators were tested, which standards were applied and the date on which water samples were taken.
2.4 Presentation of Pollution Sources. Indication of the methods used to determine the intensity of economic activities in the catchment.
2.4 Statistical Analyses. Indication of which statistical programs are used for specific indicators.
Response: please see line 116-167.
Table 1 is not required if you describe in the methodology which water quality indicators were investigated.
Response: We have deleted Table 1.
Unclear what is in Table 2 for CTD and CV?
Response: please see line 159-160.
There are only a few lines in the discussion section - everything else that is presented is results.
The discussion needs to compare the results with those of other researchers and explain why the results are the way they are.
Response: please see line 337-436.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The table 3 is to big in format, to reduce him, because you cant see the values. All figures and tables should be moved and mentioned for the first time in the Results chapter. You mentioned some indicators (precipitation, runoff, sediment, fertilizer, large cattle, pig, and sheep) in the discussions and they do not appear in the results. They should be mentioned in the results first, and after that you mention them in discussions. A clear delimitation must be made between the results and the discussions. They are mixed.
Author Response
The table 3 is to big in format, to reduce him, because you cant see the values. All figures and tables should be moved and mentioned for the first time in the Results chapter. You mentioned some indicators (precipitation, runoff, sediment, fertilizer, large cattle, pig, and sheep) in the discussions and they do not appear in the results. They should be mentioned in the results first, and after that you mention them in discussions. A clear delimitation must be made between the results and the discussions. They are mixed.
We appreciate your valuable comments on my manuscript，and have revised the manuscript according to your comments. Please watch our latest uploaded manuscript. Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please overview the abstract and reshape it. It only contains the brief presentation of the findings, but it useful for the reader to also find information about other elements, for example the methodologic approach.
Please revise the manuscript in order to solve typo and phrase logic issue (e.g. line 47: “…with scarce water resources serious pollution.”).
Please explain the acronyms when first used in the manuscript (e.g.: line 53: COD). After you give the full explanation you may use the acronym freely.
Line 101-106: The phrase is confusing: “The goals of this study were [...]. These studies will…”.
The introduction should also contain hints on the rest of the paper’s sections.
The introduction and the literature review are mixed together. It is advisable to separate the two. The references list is adequate for the topic. However, the authors should consider reviewing other recent studies too:
- https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021476
- https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111563
Please do not use “paper”, “our paper”, etc. It is not yet a paper but a manuscript/study.
Please try to connect the findings discussed in this study with previous research and state if the results are consistent or in opposition with it.
The section dedicated to concluding remarks should be rewritten. At the moment only contains a list of results. First the results are already presented in the abstract and, extensively within the section dedicated to it. It is redundant to present again only a list of results. Please put the results into context and relate it to some policy recommendations, limitations and/or future research development.
Author Response
We appreciate your valuable comments on my manuscript，and have revised the manuscript according to your comments.
Please overview the abstract and reshape it. It only contains the brief presentation of the findings, but it useful for the reader to also find information about other elements, for example the methodologic approach.
Response: please see line 9-26.
Please revise the manuscript in order to solve typo and phrase logic issue (e.g. line 47: “…with scarce water resources serious pollution.”).
Response: please see line 55.
Please explain the acronyms when first used in the manuscript (e.g.: line 53: COD). After you give the full explanation you may use the acronym freely.
Response: please see line 62.
Line 101-106: The phrase is confusing: “The goals of this study were [...]. These studies will…”.
Response: please see line 104-115.
The introduction should also contain hints on the rest of the paper’s sections.
The introduction and the literature review are mixed together. It is advisable to separate the two. The references list is adequate for the topic. However, the authors should consider reviewing other recent studies too:
- https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021476
- https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111563
Response: please see line 49-52 and line 519-523.
Please do not use “paper”, “our paper”, etc. It is not yet a paper but a manuscript/study.
Response: We have revised the manuscript.
Please try to connect the findings discussed in this study with previous research and state if the results are consistent or in opposition with it.
Response: We have revised the manuscript.
The section dedicated to concluding remarks should be rewritten. At the moment only contains a list of results. First the results are already presented in the abstract and, extensively within the section dedicated to it. It is redundant to present again only a list of results. Please put the results into context and relate it to some policy recommendations, limitations and/or future research development.
Response: We have revised the manuscript.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The submitted article is within the scope of the journal. The following issues should be addressed carefully:
A- Minor issues:
1- Use the third person for all academic writing. Therefore, remove pronouns such as (our) and (we)
2- Avoid mass citations, more than two references per sentence/piece of information.
3- Section 2.2. and 2.2.2. have the same title.
B- Major issues:
1- The novelty of the work is not clear. What is your new contribution to the knowledge?
2- Section 2.1. Study Area Description is not supported by any reference.
3- In section 2.2. Methods, how did you select the water quality indicators? Does any reference/standard method recommend that?
4- The discussion of the results should be improved.
5- Compare the results with other rivers.
Author Response
We appreciate your valuable comments on my manuscript，and have revised the manuscript according to your comments.
The submitted article is within the scope of the journal. The following issues should be addressed carefully:
A- Minor issues:
1- Use the third person for all academic writing. Therefore, remove pronouns such as (our) and (we)
Response: We have revised the manuscript.
2- Avoid mass citations, more than two references per sentence/piece of information.
Response: We have revised the manuscript.
3- Section 2.2. and 2.2.2. have the same title.
Response: We have revised the manuscript. Please see line 116-167
B- Major issues:
1- The novelty of the work is not clear. What is your new contribution to the knowledge?
Response: We appreciate your valuable comments on my manuscript. In this study, when analyzing the trend of water quality change and influencing factors in the Zuli River basin, wavelet analysis was performed to analyze their cycles and compare their main periodic changes. This is the novelty of this study.
2- Section 2.1. Study Area Description is not supported by any reference.
Response: We have revised the manuscript. Please see line 130
3- In section 2.2. Methods, how did you select the water quality indicators? Does any reference/standard method recommend that?
Response: We have revised the manuscript. Please see line 145
4- The discussion of the results should be improved.
Response: We have revised the manuscript. Please see line 337-436
5- Compare the results with other rivers
Response: We have revised the manuscript. Please see line 402-404
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Hello,
I think that the article has been fundamentally corrected and can be published.
Reviewer 2 Report
accept in present form for publication
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors followed the comments and improved their manuscript accordingly.
Reviewer 4 Report
Thanks for addressing my comments
