Assessment of Ecological Flow in Hulan River Basin Utilizing SWAT Model and Diverse Hydrological Approaches
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study established the SWAT Model and Various Hydrological Methods to explore the ecological discharge of the Hulan River Basin. The subject of this study is interesting and has important implications for water resource utilization and ecological protection in China. However, the current manuscript still contains several flaws and incomprehensible expressions. Therefore, I propose a moderate revision of the manuscript with the following comments.
1. The language of the manuscript needs to be greatly improved. English style should be edited and proofread by native English speakers.
2. Abstract:
Abbreviations appearing for the first time in the manuscript should be labeled with the full name, e.g., Q90
3. Keywords:
There should be no abbreviations in the Keywords section, e.g., SWAT model
4. Introduction:
The shortcomings of previous studies and the innovation and motivation of this study should be emphasized. It is suggested that a table of Literature review could be added to summarize similar previous studies and reveal the innovation of this study. Please refer to the study of Liu et al (2023).
Liu Y, Huang X, et al. Spatiotemporal dynamics and anthropogenic drivers of geological hazard prevention efficiency in China[J]. Cities, 2023, 143: 104607.
5. Fig.5 should be redrawn, the font of the horizontal and vertical coordinates is too small and illegible. It is recommended that Figure 5 be merged into the same figure and that the subfigures be denoted by (a), (b) and (c).
6. What do the vertical coordinates of Figure 6 represent? Must be described in detail.
7. It is recommended that Figure 7 be merged into the same figure and that the subfigures be denoted by (a) and (b).
8. Figure 10 should be merged into the same figure, with subfigures indicated by (a) and (b), respectively.
9. Similarly, Figure 11 should be merged into the same figure, with subfigures indicated by (a) and (b), respectively.
10. The biggest flaw in this paper is the lack of a discussion section. It is meaningless to give only the calculation results without discussion, and it is strongly recommended to add a section in the manuscript to discuss in depth the reasonableness of the results and the applicability of the methodology.
11. It is suggested to add the limitations of this study in the discussion section. Please refer to the study of Zhang et al (2023).
Zhang Z, Li Y, Wang X, et al. Investigating river health across mountain to urban transitions using Pythagorean fuzzy cloud technique under uncertain environment[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2023, 620: 129426.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language of the manuscript needs to be greatly improved. English style should be edited and proofread by native English speakers.
Author Response
Dear Experts.
Greetings. Thank you very much for your ability to advise on this paper, and I have made the following changes in conjunction with the suggested changes made by the three experts.
|
Comments 1: The language of the manuscript needs to be greatly improved. English style should be edited and proofread by native English speakers. |
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have polished and improved the English of the whole article |
|
Comments 2: Abstract: Abbreviations appearing for the first time in the manuscript should be labeled with the full name, e.g., Q90 |
|
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In the abstract I have added the full name of Q90 method: monthly average flow with 90% guarantee rate (highlighted in red in the modification file) In lines 297 and 298 of the article, I added the full name of the Q50-Q90 method: the monthly frequency calculation method (highlighted in red in the modification file) |
|
Comments 3: Keywords: There should be no abbreviations in the Keywords section, e.g., SWAT model. |
|
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I changed SWAT model to Soil and Water Assessment Tool in the keyword (highlighted in red in the modification file). |
|
Comments 4: Introduction: The shortcomings of previous studies and the innovation and motivation of this study should be emphasized. It is suggested that a table of Literature review could be added to summarize similar previous studies and reveal the innovation of this study. Please refer to the study of Liu et al (2023).Liu Y, Huang X, et al. Spatiotemporal dynamics and anthropogenic drivers of geological hazard prevention efficiency in China[J]. Cities, 2023, 143: 104607. |
|
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 105 of the article, based on previous studies, I added a literature review table and revealed the innovations of this study (highlighted in red in the modification file) |
|
Comments 5: Fig.5 should be redrawn, the font of the horizontal and vertical coordinates is too small and illegible. It is recommended that Figure 5 be merged into the same figure and that the subfigures be denoted by (a), (b) and (c). |
|
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I redrew Figure 5, merged it into a single graph, enlarged the font, and represented it with (a)(b)(c) |
|
Comments 6: What do the vertical coordinates of Figure 6 represent? Must be described in detail. |
|
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 440 of the article, I added the SWAT model parameter descriptions to explain the ordinate in Figure 6 |
|
Comments 7: It is recommended that Figure 7 be merged into the same figure and that the subfigures be denoted by (a) and (b). |
|
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I merged Figure 7 into a single graph and used (a) (b) indicates |
|
Comments 8: Figure 10 should be merged into the same figure, with subfigures indicated by (a) and (b), respectively. |
|
Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I combined Figure 10 into a single graph and represented it with (a) (b) |
|
Comments 9: Similarly, Figure 11 should be merged into the same figure, with subfigures indicated by (a) and (b), respectively. |
|
Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I combined Figure 11 into a single graph and represented it with (a) (b) |
|
Comments 10: The biggest flaw in this paper is the lack of a discussion section. It is meaningless to give only the calculation results without discussion, and it is strongly recommended to add a section in the manuscript to discuss in depth the reasonableness of the results and the applicability of the methodology. |
|
Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 555 to 651 of the article , I have rewritten and refined the discussion section of this article(highlighted in red and purple in the modification file) |
|
Comments 11: It is suggested to add the limitations of this study in the discussion section. Please refer to the study of Zhang et al (2023).Zhang Z, Li Y, Wang X, et al. Investigating river health across mountain to urban transitions using Pythagorean fuzzy cloud technique under uncertain environment[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2023, 620: 129426. |
|
Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 626 to 651 of the article I added section 4.5 Advantages and limitations of the method to discuss the advantages and limitations of the method (highlighted in red and purple in the modification file) |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In the introduction, the authors argue the shortage of the previous studies lies in the incomplete analysis of the spatial and temporal distribution of ecological flow and water scarcity across the entire watershed. If so, it is suggested to address the advantages of your study on this aspect in the results and conclusion sections.
The authors address the DFM method. If so, the detailed introduction and the results of the method should be emphasized in Section 2 and Section 3, individually. Especially in Section 3, it is suggested to compare DFM and other conventional methods to highlight the advantages of the DFM method.
Other comments are minor.
Line 31: What is DFM short for? Please explain it when it’s first shown in the manuscript.
Line 186: At least one reference is needed for the Itemized survey method
Line 225: Where is the model from? Since the Ecological Discharge Calculation is the main objective of this manuscript. It is suggested to present the model in detail.
Line 269: It is better to be presented as “The Texas method”. Any reference for the approach?
Line 275-278: The history of the method can be deleted.
Line 285: It is better to be presented as “The Tessman method”. Any reference for the approach?
Line 293: It is better to be presented as “The DFM method”.
Line 317: What is NGPRP?
Linear320: A reference is needed for the “GB/T 22482-2008”
Fig3: The font size is too small to read.
Table3: What are these Land use types? It should be explained.
Fig4: The font size is too small to read.
Line 405: What is R2? It should be explained the usage of the index.
Line 462: modify the sub-title as “the optimization of the Ecological flow calculation”
Line 548: model uncertainty?
Line 495: Please correct the full stop “。”
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageN/A
Author Response
Dear Experts.
Greetings. Thank you very much for your ability to advise on this paper, and I have made the following changes in conjunction with the suggested changes made by the three experts.
|
Comments 1: The authors address the DFM method. If so, the detailed introduction and the results of the method should be emphasized in Section 2 and Section 3, individually. Especially in Section 3, it is suggested to compare DFM and other conventional methods to highlight the advantages of the DFM method. |
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 638 to 652 of the article, I supplemented the results obtained by DFM with those obtained by other hydrology, highlighting the advantages of DFM |
|
Comments 2: Line 31: What is DFM short for? Please explain it when it’s first shown in the manuscript |
|
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 81 and 314 of the article , I explained the DFM method : Distribution Flow Method (highlighted in yellow in the modification file) |
|
Comments 3: Line 225: Where is the model from? Since the Ecological Discharge Calculation is the main objective of this manuscript. It is suggested to present the model in detail. |
|
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 245 to 248 of the article, I added the source of the model and related details(highlighted in yellow in the modification file). |
|
Comments 4: Line 269: It is better to be presented as “The Texas method”. Any reference for the approach?. |
|
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 288 to 289 of the article, I have been reformulated as The Texas method and supplemented with the citations of The Texas method(highlighted in yellow in the modification file) |
|
Comments 5: Line 275-278: The history of the method can be deleted. |
|
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I deleted the history of the Q50-Q90 |
|
Comments 6: Line 285: It is better to be presented as “The Tessman method”. Any reference for the approach?. |
|
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 304 to 305 of the article, I have been reformulated as The Tessman method and supplemented with the citations of The Tessman method(highlighted in yellow in the modification file) |
|
Comments 7: Line 293: It is better to be presented as “The DFM method”. |
|
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 313 to 314 of the article, I have been reformulated as The DFM method (highlighted in yellow in the modification file) |
|
Comments 8: Line 317: What is NGPRP?. |
|
Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 313 to 314 of the article, In lines 313 to 314 of the article, I have added explanations of NGPRP law and cited literature (highlighted in yellow and purple in the modification file) |
|
Comments 9: Linear320: A reference is needed for the “GB/T 22482-2008”. |
|
Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I added the citation of GB/T 22482-2008(38) |
|
Comments 10: Fig3: The font size is too small to read. |
|
Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I redrew Figure 3 and enlarged the font. |
|
Comments 11: Table3: What are these Land use types? It should be explained. |
|
Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 153 of the article, I supplemented the land use type table and explained the land use type in Figure 2 (highlighted in yellow in the modification file) |
|
Comments 12: Line 293: It is better to be presented as “The DFM method”. |
|
Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 313 to 314 of the article, I have been reformulated as The DFM method (highlighted in yellow in the modification file) |
|
Comments 13: Fig4: The font size is too small to read. |
|
Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I redrew Figure 4 and enlarged the font. |
|
Comments 14: Line 405: What is R2? It should be explained the usage of the index. |
|
Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines197 to 203 of the article, I added the meaning and calculation formula of the correlation of coefficient (R2 )and Nash coefficient (NSE) (highlighted in yellow in the modification file) |
|
Comments 15: Line 462: modify the sub-title as “the optimization of the Ecological flow calculation”. |
|
Response 15: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 483 of the article,I changed the subtitle to the optimization of the Ecological flow calculation (highlighted in yellow in the modification file). |
|
Comments 16: Table3: Line 548: model uncertainty. |
|
Response 16: Affected by the time step of hydrological data and the research focus, different studies choose different parameters when constructing swat model, and the parameters determined are not exactly the same. |
|
Comments 17: Line 495: Please correct the full stop “。” |
|
Response 17: In lines531 of the article, I am very sorry that it has been changed to "." |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall Merit for Your article is high. The amount of material collected and research methods used is admirable. The conclusions resulting from the research were written in an accessible manner. I lacked details on several aspects, especially in the initial part of the paper, which I described in the comment below. The matter concerns the need to clarify all abbreviations, supplement citations for the research methods used and improve the readability of the figures.
Detailed comment:
line 57 - in the text is: Yu[8] et al, I think it should be: Yu et al [8], see also line no. 59, 62, 65 etc.
line 76 - before You use abbreviation DFM add full name of the method, also in the line 80 and further
line 83 - the (3) point - what about drought period? is classification on flood and non-flood periods is enough looking in the problem described in the lines of 41-49?
fig.1 - too small for me, explain boundary line on the left map, scale bar for the maps on the right
line 105 - Geographic 105 Spatial Data Cloud platform - add URL address, also for China National Meteorological Data Center, line 110
line 112 - add meteorological station locations on the map, add information about period of the obtained data
line 120 - add location on the map of the Lanxi hydrological station
line 121 - The continuity of the data during this period is satisfactory - what was the method based on this statement?
line 130 - time step is every 10 years or denser?
fig.2 - too small, add scale bar, where is the explanation of abbrrevioations?
line 141 - in Fig.1 there are no explanation for the soil symbols
line 143 and 148 - who introduced LUD, CLUD and Land use transfer matrix?
line 274 - citation needed for chapter 2.7.4 and 2.7.5
line 317 - NGPRP - what does it mean?
tab.2 - why for the Non-flood season 10% of ANF is in medium and bad state in the same time?
tab.3 - area units missing (also in tab.4), no explanation for abbrreviations, values presented as percent are not percent
fig.4 - font is too small
line 320 - where it can be found?- GB/T 22482-2008 320 "Specification for Hydrological Information Forecast"
Author Response
Dear Experts.
Greetings. Thank you very much for your ability to advise on this paper, and I have made the following changes in conjunction with the suggested changes made by the three experts.
|
Comments 1: in the text is: Yu[8] et al, I think it should be: Yu et al [8], see also line no. 59, 62, 65 etc.. |
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 58 to 69 of the article, I reformatted the citation. |
|
Comments 2: line 76 - before You use abbreviation DFM add full name of the method, also in the line 80 and further. |
|
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 81 and 314 of the article , I explained the DFM method : Distribution Flow Method (highlighted in yellow in the modification file) |
|
Comments 3: line 83 - the (3) point - what about drought period? is classification on flood and non-flood periods is enough looking in the problem described in the lines of 41-49?. |
|
Response 3: The division of the Harbin River into flood and non-flood periods in this study is aimed at utilizing the Tennant method for ecological flow assessment. The Tennant method divides rivers into two time periods, namely non-flood and flood periods, for calculation purposes. Based on the hydrological characteristics of the Harbin River basin, it is sufficient to classify the basin into flood and non-flood periods. |
|
Comments 4: line 105 - Geographic 105 Spatial Data Cloud platform - add URL address, also for China National Meteorological Data Center, line 110. |
|
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 114 and 124 of the article, I added the URL address. (highlighted in purple in the modification file) |
|
Comments 5: fig.1 - too small for me, explain boundary line on the left map, scale bar for the maps on the right. |
|
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I redrew Figure 1 and added the right map scale bar and the left map border |
|
Comments 6: line 112 - add meteorological station locations on the map, add information about period of the obtained data. |
|
Response 6: In lines 124 and 127 of the article, I added the location of the weather station and the hydrographic station to Figure 1 and provided the period of the obtained data (highlighted in purple in the modification file) |
|
Comments 7: Line 293: line 120 - add location on the map of the Lanxi hydrological station. |
|
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I added the Lancey station location to Figure 1 |
|
Comments 8: Line 317: line 121 - The continuity of the data during this period is satisfactory - what was the method based on this statement? |
|
Response 8: The hydrological data at this stage rarely have channel disconnection and extreme values, so it is considered that the hydrological data at this stage has good continuity |
|
Comments 9: line 130 - time step is every 10 years or denser?. |
|
Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 139 and 140 of the article, I added the time step in the paper, and the time step is 10 years (highlighted in purple in the modification file) |
|
Comments 10: fig.2 - too small, add scale bar, where is the explanation of abbrrevioations ? |
|
Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I redrew Figure 2 and added the scale, as well as the schedule description. |
|
Comments 11: line 141 - in Fig.1 there are no explanation for the soil symbols. |
|
Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 153 of the article, I added the Soil types and abbreviations within study area (highlighted in purple in the modification file) |
|
Comments 12: line 143 and 148 - who introduced LUD, CLUD and Land use transfer matrix?. |
|
Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 154 to 181 of the article, I retouched and added the description of LUD,CLUD and Land use transfer matrix (highlighted in purple in the modification file) |
|
Comments 13: line 274 - citation needed for chapter 2.7.4 and 2.7.5. |
|
Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 303 and 313 of the article, I added the citation for chapter 2.7.4 and 2.7.5 (highlighted in purple in the modification file). |
|
Comments 14: tab.2 - why for the Non-flood season 10% of ANF is in medium and bad state in the same time?. |
|
Response 14: 10% of the average annual discharge is the minimum instantaneous discharge that can support the survival of aquatic organisms. At this time, the habitat conditions are barren or degraded. Therefore, the calculated value of ecological discharge should not be lower than 10% of the average annual discharge when calculating ecological discharge.Therefore, the medium level of non-flood season is also 10% of the average annual flow |
|
Comments 15: tab.3 - area units missing (also in tab.4), no explanation for abbrreviations, values presented as percent are not percent. |
|
Response 15: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, In lines 392 and 407 of the article, I added the area units in the table. |
|
Comments 16: line 320 - where it can be found?- GB/T 22482-2008 320 "Specification for Hydrological Information Forecast". |
|
Response 16: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I added the citation of GB/T 22482-2008(38). |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLine 30: "Q90("？The bracket should deleted.
In the abstract, it is suggested to highlight the main findings of this study. For example, results (1) can be removed.
The number of equations should be put in the same line. Please refer to the equation (12)-(14).
Author Response
|
Comments 1: Line 30: "Q90("？The bracket should deleted. |
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, We have removed unnecessary parentheses. |
|
Comments 2: In the abstract, it is suggested to highlight the main findings of this study. For example, results (1) can be removed. |
|
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, We have removed the results (1) in abstract |
|
Comments 3: The number of equations should be put in the same line. Please refer to the equation (12)-(14).. |
|
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, We have rechecked the numbering of equations and consolidated the number of equations in the same line. (highlighted in red in the modification file). |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
