Formation of Coherent Flow Structures beyond Vegetation Patches in Channel
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper investigates the interaction between flow and vegetation, focusing the attention on vortex development behind the patches. The analysis is performed based on the experimental results obtained during a laboratory campaign carried on different geometries of the vegetation patches. Results are then compared with those derived by means of the octant analysis on the coherent shear stresses.
The paper is of interest for the readers of the Journal. It is well structured and organized. In general, my main concern is on the discussion/representation of the results which should/must be improved. For example, a critical comparison between experimental results and literature should help to understand which gap the research wants to fill, thus improving both the discussion and conclusions.
Hence, a moderate-to-major revision, also along the lines below proposed, is needed to obtain a contribution worthy of publication.
Abstract:
- please declare the variables at Lines 20 and 24 and correct ‘channel’ at L. 14;
- Introduction:
- declare the variables ‘h’ and ‘H’ at L. 64;
- L. 74 please amend the semicolon between ‘patch’ and ‘namely’;
- Eq. 2: define the time ‘T’.
- Coherent shear stress:
- in Eq. 4 declare the meaning of ‘N’.
- Decomposition of bursting events:
- Please enlarge Figure 1.
- Experimental set-up:
A sketch of the experimental set-up would help the reader to understand the physical model deployed in the flume.
- L. 198: please correct ‘a experimental run’ → ‘an’
- L. 214: is the porous medium used for reproducing the channel bed uniform?
- did you filter ADV raw signals?
- in Table 2 reporting the channel width is not necessary;
- use l/s as units for the discharge Q ( the same at L. 182);
- Figure 3 is not very clear, since the details of the vegetation in the laboratory experiments are not visible. Increase the dimension and the quality of the images.
- Results and Discussion:
- L. 228: please amend ‘discussed to discuss’;
- correct the bracket at the end of L. 230;
- Results reported in Figure 4 (the same in Fig. 7) are not visible. Graphs have a very poor quality. Please improve them;
- Please make more readable the labels of graphs reported in Figure 5.
Author Response
Please see attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper attempts to perform measurements and analyze the composition of coherent structures in the wake of different vegetation patches encountered in channel flow. The chosen configuration for the study includes different patch dimensions to cover the range from small to fully covered patches that mimic actual patches found in natural vegetation conditions.
The paper is well written with good quality plots, figures, and tables. The introduction correctly lists the current literature and sufficiently motivates the particular problem studied in this paper. The methods section and experimental description is well described and gives good information to the reader when looking at the results. The results section is good with impressive analysis and attention given to not just listing results but also providing physical insight into the observations. The burst analysis performed is quite well done and provides a good explanation of why the von Karman sheet might not survive in the wake of the vegetation.
An overall good paper that was a pleasure to read. I recommend accepting with minor formatting and English changes.
Please go through the paper and fix some grammar. Also, it looks like the formatting is different in different sections of the paper. The line spacing and grammar seems different after Section 5.2.
Some specific issues:
Line 101: has been attracting attentions – should be ‘attention’
Line 357: Capitalize the Topics and have appropriate spacing
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In the revised version of the Manuscript the Authors has improved the paper and addressed my comments. However I suggest to improve the quality of graphs of Figures 4 and 9 (graphically speaking). Moreover, Hv at Line 26 in the Abstract is not specified. After these minor revisions the paper can be published.
