Geomorphologic Analysis of Small River Basin within the Framework of Fractal Tree
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper wants to present a modified framework of geomorphologic analysis based on the concept of fractal tree. The previous researches only focus on the bifurcation process of network structure without considering sinuosity of channel segment in detailed, and this study will to modify the methodology to overcome those limitations. A river basin in Korea is selected to apply the modified framework to geomorphologic analysis.
General comments:
1) This paper wants to present a modified framework of geomorphologic analysis on a river basin in Korea, but the comparison between previous framework and modified one is not enough in this paper. The rationality and logicality of modified framework seem not well represented. Especially, detailed comparisons are not presented in Figure 7.
2) Geomorphologic analysis in section 3.2 is not enough in whole paper, only TauDEM operated on ArcMap is applied to the manipulation of DEM in the resolution of 20*20m and the construction of drainage path network by using eight flow direction method. More geomorphologic analysis can be added to present watershed landform characteristics.
3) The more key study areas can be added in this paper, only one river basin is not enough to present sinuosity of channel segment in detailed in modified framework of geomorphologic analysis.
Author Response
Dear anonymous reviewer,
First of all, we would like to express our deepest gratitude to the distinguished reviewer for spending your precious time to review our manuscript. Your comments and advice are highly appreciated, and they are useful for us to revise our manuscript for producing a high-quality journal. We made major revisions based on the comments, the corrected portions at the revised manuscript revision are highlighted in red color for the benefits of the reviewers to identify and verify the corrections. And the followings summarize the corrections have been made corresponding to the comments given by the distinguished reviewer. The following are point-by-point the responses to the comments of respected reviewers.
Point 1: This paper wants to present a modified framework of geomorphologic analysis on a river basin in Korea, but the comparison between previous framework and modified one is not enough in this paper. The rationality and logicality of modified framework seem not well represented. Especially, detailed comparisons are not presented in Figure 7.
Response 1: In order to clearly compare the modified framework suggested in this study with previous one by Kim and Jung [17], we have added more explanations for Equation (16) and Equation (17) in terms of fractal dimension of channel network as a whole (line 170 to 180).
Figure 7 in the original manuscript is now Figure 8 in the new one. We have added more comparison with the previous framework by Kim and Jung [17] into section 4.6 (line 347 to 352).
Point 2: Geomorphologic analysis in section 3.2 is not enough in whole paper, only TauDEM operated on ArcMap is applied to the manipulation of DEM in the resolution of 20*20m and the construction of drainage path network by using eight flow direction method. More geomorphologic analysis can be added to present watershed landform characteristics.
Response 2: Basically, section 3.2 is intended to present the methodology for geomorphologic analysis used in this study. So, we have added the brief descriptions of the main processes conducted for geomorphologic analysis in this study including the generation of DEM (line 144 to 145), stream-burning process (line 147 to 149), and pruning process for evaluating topologic features of fractal tree (line 159 to 164) into section 3.2. In addition, two additional papers have been listed in section References as follows .
- Saunders, W. K. and Maidment, D. R. A GIS assessment of nonpoint source pollution in the San Antonio-Nueces coastal basin. Center for Research in Water Resources, University of Texas at Austin, 1996.
- Dodds, P.S. and Rothman, D.H. Unified View of Scaling Laws for River Networks. Phys. Rev. E 2000, 59(5), 4865.
Point 3: The more key study areas can be added in this paper, only one river basin is not enough to present sinuosity of channel segment in detailed in modified framework of geomorphologic analysis.
Response 3: We have added the application results together with Figure 7 and Table 6 for two more small basins included in the Seolma creek basin in order to validate the assumption of Equation (15) as well as the modified framework with Equation (16) and Equation (17) (line 313 to 329).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Feng et al. made an interesting and local study applying a fractal tree methodology in order to model a hydro-geomorphological analysis in Korea. My comments are the following:
1. It is important that authors extrapolate to a global context (not only for Korea) the potential use of the proposed methodology. Authors can propose the methodology use in contrasting urban and rural environments were hydrological conditions are different.
2. Figure 1 has to present its global-regional location, perhaps a small map of its location in its regional context for a better understanding of the study site conditions. The presented map should have at least geographic coordinates, and the graphic scale must close in integer numbers.
3. In the Study site section, authors should indicate briefly in a paragraph of no more than 5 lines, the geological conditions, brief regional geomorphology, climate characteristics, and land use (mostly urban?). The latter have change during the last century? It is important information for worldwide readers.
4. The section 4. Case Study should be called “Results and Discussion”
5. Figure 2 needs, as Figure 1, extreme geographic coordinates, and the graphic scale must close in integer numbers. Perhaps to remain the requested small location map in one of the map corners.
6. Figure 7, the same changes in the map mentioned before.
6. It is compulsory, to make a section with a Discussion of similar studies of this fractal tree methodology in similar and bigger size basins in contrasting environments such as temperate, tropical, urban and rural. This point is important to depict the usefulness of this study.
7. There is a lack to show the importance and potential application of this method in other contexts. Authors have to expand their discussion in these lines: a) discussion of their results with other similar studies in contrasting environments; b) potential application of this methodology in other regions in a global context.
8. Minor changes:
Line 43. Output for salient
Line 305. …study:
1)
2)…
Author Response
Dear anonymous reviewer,
First of all, we would like to express our deepest gratitude to the distinguished reviewer for spending your precious time to review our manuscript. Your comments and advice are highly appreciated, and they are useful for us to revise our manuscript for producing a high-quality journal. We made major revisions based on the comments, the corrected portions at the revised manuscript revision are highlighted in red color for the benefits of the reviewers to identify and verify the corrections. And the followings summarize the corrections have been made corresponding to the comments given by the distinguished reviewer.
Point 1: It is important that authors extrapolate to a global context (not only for Korea) the potential use of the proposed methodology. Authors can propose the methodology use in contrasting urban and rural environments where hydrological conditions are different.
Response 1: In our opinion, the methodology proposed in this paper could be applied not only to Korean river basin but also to any river basin in other countries. We have thus omitted the phrase “in Korea” from the title of manuscript, in order to stress the potential use of the methodology in a global context following the reviewer’s comment.
We have added the explanation about potential application of the framework suggested in this study into section 4.6 (line 353-366).
In addition, one additional paper has been listed in section References as follows .
- Yang, S., Paik, K., McGrath, G., Urich, C., Kruger, E., Kumar, P., and Rao, P.S.C. Comparing Topology of Engineered and Natural Drainage Networks. Water Resour Res 2017, 53, pp. 8966-8979.
Point 2: Figure 1 has to present its global-regional location, perhaps a small map of its location in its regional context for a better understanding of the study site conditions. The presented map should have at least geographic coordinates, and the graphic scale must close in integer numbers.
Response 2: Following the reviewer’s comment, Figure 1 has been modified as follows. At first, a small map presenting the regional location of study site has been inserted to the lower left corner of Figure 1. Secondly, the coordinate system has been added to the bottom of Figure 1. And, finally, the scale bar has been modified in order to close in integer numbers.
Point 3: In the Study site section, authors should indicate briefly in a paragraph of no more than 5 lines, the geological conditions, brief regional geomorphology, climate characteristics, and land use (mostly urban?). The latter have change during the last century? It is important information for worldwide readers.
Response 3: We have added a brief overview of the Seolma creek basin into the Study site section (line 126 to 132). It is noted that the Seolma creek basin has been rarely developed during the last century due to its geopolitical location and it can be, thus, regarded to be in a mostly natural condition.
Point 4: The section 4. Case Study should be called “Results and Discussion”
Response 4: Thank you for pointing out the mistake, and we have corrected it in the manuscript. (line 187)
Point 5: Figure 2 needs, as Figure 1, extreme geographic coordinates, and the graphic scale must close in integer numbers. Perhaps to remain the requested small location map in one of the map corners.
Response 5: As Figure 1, Figure 2 has been modified as follows. At first, a small map presenting the regional location of study site has been inserted to the lower left corner of Figure 2. Secondly, the coordinate system has been added to the bottom of Figure 2. And, finally, the scale bar has been modified in order to close in integer numbers.
Point 6: Figure 7, the same changes in the map mentioned before.
Response 6: Figure 7 in the original manuscript is now Figure 8 in the new one. Following the comment of the reviewer, Figure 8 has been also modified as follows. At first, a small map presenting the global-regional location of study site has been inserted to the lower left corner of Figure 8. Secondly, the coordinate system has been added to the bottom of Figure 8. And, finally, the scale bar has been modified in order to close in integer numbers.
Point 7: It is compulsory, to make a section with a Discussion of similar studies of this fractal tree methodology in similar and bigger size basins in contrasting environments such as temperate, tropical, urban and rural. This point is important to depict the usefulness of this study.
Point 8: There is a lack to show the importance and potential application of this method in other contexts. Authors have to expand their discussion in these lines: a) discussion of their results with other similar studies in contrasting environments; b) potential application of this methodology in other regions in a global context.
Response 7 and 8: We felt that we might be able to answer to comment 7 and comment 8 from the reviewer by adding section 4.6. We have added the explanation about potential application of the framework suggested in this study into section 4.6 (line 353-366).
In addition, one additional paper has been listed in section References as follows .
- Yang, S., Paik, K., McGrath, G., Urich, C., Kruger, E., Kumar, P., and Rao, P.S.C. Comparing Topology of Engineered and Natural Drainage Networks. Water Resour Res 2017, 53, pp. 8966-8979.
Point 9: Minor changes:
Line 43. Output for salient
Line 305. …study:
1)
2)…
Response 9: Thank you for pointing out the mistakes, and we have corrected them in the manuscript. And our manuscript has been read and re-edited again by a professionally native English-speaking colleague.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
1) Add the location names in all Figures.
2) Clear the objective from line 56 to line 67.
3) Further Discussion can be divided to different questions.
Author Response
Dear anonymous reviewer,
First of all, we would like to express our deepest gratitude to the distinguished reviewer for spending your precious time to review our manuscript. Your comments and advice are highly appreciated, and they are useful for us to revise our manuscript for producing a high-quality journal. We made major revisions based on the comments, the corrected portions at the revised manuscript revision are highlighted in red color for the benefits of the reviewers to identify and verify the corrections. And the followings summarize the corrections have been made corresponding to the comments given by the distinguished reviewer. The following are point-by-point the responses to the comments of respected reviewers.
Point 1: Add the location names in all Figures.
Response 1: Following the reviewer’s comment, we have added the location names into all Figures.
Point 2: Clear the objective from line 56 to line 67.
Response 2: In order to clearly state the objective of this study, we have added more explanation about the purpose of this study (line 62 to 64 and line 68 to 69).
Point 3: Further Discussion can be divided to different questions.
Response 3: Following the reviewer’s comment, we have divided Further Discussion into two sub sections:
4.6.1. Interpretation of Drainage Path Network
4.6.2. Potential Usage of Fractal Tree Concept
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the improvement of your manuscript. One point remain unsolved: The maps still need their coordinates, all of them: Figures 1,2,7,8.
Author Response
Dear anonymous reviewer,
First of all, we would like to express our deepest gratitude to the distinguished reviewer for spending your precious time to review our manuscript. Your comments and advice are highly appreciated, and they are useful for us to revise our manuscript for producing a high-quality journal. We made major revisions based on the comments, the corrected portions at the revised manuscript revision are highlighted in red color for the benefits of the reviewers to identify and verify the corrections. And the followings summarize the corrections have been made corresponding to the comments given by the distinguished reviewer.
Point 1: Thank you for the improvement of your manuscript. One point remain unsolved: The maps still need their coordinates, all of them: Figures 1,2,7,8.
Response 1: Following the reviewer’s comment, we have inserted the coordinates into all of Figures.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
