Modeling and Monitoring of Hydrodynamics and Surface Water Quality in the Sulejów Dam Reservoir, Poland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of water 1056701
My previous concerns:
The paper and figures are prepared very carelessly and not follow the author instruction for Water journal. Manuscript lacks line numbers, the figures should be corrected (no it looks like printscreens).
Some things have been corrected during revision but some still have not. Even abstract is still contains technical errors. For example in line 2 some words are highlighted in green. In Line 17 there are two dots and lack of space after “model”. Similar technical errors occur also in other points in the draft. In my opinions such errors should be eliminated from the draft before submission for an international journal.
The English of the paper is very week and needs significant corrections by native speaker to be readable. For example fourth sentence in the abstract completely lacks a subject.
In my opinion manuscript should be shorten ( in the present form it contains above 20 figures). About 80% of figures are not really need in the paper.
I still think that some figures are not need in the manuscript (e.g., Figs. 3, 4, 5). These figures should be removed from the manuscript or moved to the supplementary materials.
Please also correct the English and structure of present figure's and table's captions.
-There is different style of using of "A", "A-" "(A)" in the figures and tables captions along text. Please use the same style along whole text.
-The caption of Table 1 need mode details. Now it is:
" Table 1. Rates and constants established for the Sulejów Reservoir."
Please explain what did you meant by "rates" and "constants"
-The caption of Fig. 14 is prepared careleslly and contains repetitions.
The paper is describing one case studies from the Sulejów Reservoir. The title should be corrected to precisely pointing this information. Now the title is too general in relation to manuscript content.
Ok. Corrected.
In the corrected manuscript please pay more attention to information on how different scenarios affect different parameters. Please add values or describe relations obtained. Please describe the distribution of a given parameter modeled and observed through the year and evaluate it’s relation to algal blooms.
In my opinion the present form of the abstract is not acceptable. Please describe your findings using “Background->methods/results->implications” fashion. In the present form all this parts are mixed which make reading extremely difficult. Additionally, abstract contains many grammar and technical errors. Please correct the structure of first sentence. I recommend to begin this sentence from „The aim of this article/work is …”
What do you meant by “3D water hydrodynamic and water quality model” ?
“The study was carried out in a frame of the MONSUL project (www.monsul.wipos.p.lodz.pl) during the study season: May and October 2015; obtain results were analyzed also with regard to the weather conditions”. In my opinion this information is not important in the article published in international journal.
“With satisfactory input data, the GEMSS model quantifies the response in the reservoir in a proper way”. Please Describe GEMSS model first. What do you meant by proper way?
In the lines 382-383 you are still use the sentence “With satisfactory input data, the model quantifies the response in the reservoir in a good way”.
-what “response” you meant ?
-what do you meant by “good way” ?
Please specify to what aims the model outputs maybe acceptable or usefull.
Model evaluation should be carried out statistically e.g. by comparison the RMSE error between modeled and measured values. In the the paper I have not found such a comparison.
“Modelling activities” Please correct such errors in whole paper.
Corrected.
My additional corrections.
I suggest to revise the draft to adding more attention to results utilization for euthrophication and related algal bloom predictions (e.g. cyanobacteria). In my opinion this is the most interesting application of the results you were obtained. You were mentioned about this issue here and there in the manuscript but this informations are unstructurized. My suggestion is to prepare the whole draft in the following way
- We use numerical models to predicts parameters which maybe usefull for evaluation of algal blooms occurrence.
- We modeled a parameters a, b,c, d…
- Using our modeling and monitoring results we showed that parameter x,y,x… is related to algal bloom.
- We use our model to propose solution how to solve this problem
Abstract.
Lines 10-14. I suggest to change the structure and order of first two sentences to:
“The aim of this work is to evaluate core variables of the ecological potential of the Sulejów Reservoir (temperature distribution etc.…..) using three-dimensional hydrodynamic model – GEMSS-HDM 11 coupled with water quality model – WASP EUTRO (GEMSS-WQM)”
Introduction
Line 33-37. I suggest to remove this lines and start the intro from line 37 or 41.
Lines 47-52. Please give some examples for these general statements.
Lines 57-60. I like these sentences. I would like to see such the story ad structure in the whole manuscript.
Lines 61-65. As above please add more details to this general statements. Highlight some key results from the works references here to explain readers what you mean.
Line 66-73. Please remove such the statements from the whole paper. There is no need to explain the history of digital computers, mathematical details and history of modeling!!!
Line 74-84. I suggest to structurize these paragraphs based on the problems (euthtopication, cyano..) not on the history of this research.
Line 102. Please remove “inter alia”. Please add reference to each parameters which you are describing here.
Line 109. Maybe simply, “The Sulejów Reservoir is representative of small lowland reservoir in central Europe” ? I think that similar reservoirs in the populated areas of Germany or Belgium function in the same way. Water is an international journal and representativnes of results for only one country suggests very narrow applicability of the results. Please correct similar statements in the whole text.
Line 116. Change “prepared “ to “proposed”.
Study area
Line 118. As above. Please delete such details. There are not so important for an international readers.
Figure 1. Add small map of Europe indicating the Poland.
Methodology
Line 140. Change “Methodology “ to “methods”
Line 141-149. Please delete this general statements and starts from the Line 149.
Line 161-162. I don’t understand this sentence.
Line 173. Please remove.
Line 176-179. Please remove.
Line 264. Please correct to “based on the above unceratinities…”
Line 265-266. I don’t understand this sentence.
Discussion
Present version of discussion is completely lacking comparison of the results obtained with the other case studies. It is not acceptable in an international journal. I recommend to use all key works in the topic (e.g., those cited in the intro) to prepare discussion of your results and proposed solution.
Conclusion
Based on the revised version of discussuion please rewrite the conclusion section.
Line 370-376. Delete this sentences or move to the intro.
Line 378. “was used” despite “can be used”
Line 379-383. Delete this sentence add give two-three sentence about key parameters triggering algal blom modeled for Sulejów Reservoir.
Please give some examples of such decision.
Line 384-388. Please remove.
Line 388-390. Please move to the discussion and add more details and implications to this fact.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript entitled
„Modelling and monitoring of hydrodynamics and surface water quality in the Sulejow dam reservoir, Poland”
Those comments are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper.
We have studied all comments carefully and have made correction point by point.
All manuscript chapters have been revised.
My previous concerns:
The paper and figures are prepared very carelessly and not follow the author instruction for Water journal. Manuscript lacks line numbers, the figures should be corrected (no it looks like printscreens).
Some things have been corrected during revision but some still have not. Even abstract is still contains technical errors. For example in line 2 some words are highlighted in green. In Line 17 there are two dots and lack of space after model. Similar technical errors occur also in other points in the draft. In my opinions such errors should be eliminated from the draft before submission for an international journal.
All technical errors have been corrected
The English of the paper is very week and needs significant corrections by native speaker to be readable. For example fourth sentence in the abstract completely lacks a subject.
Abstract has been changed.
In my opinion manuscript should be shorten ( in the present form it contains above 20 figures). About 80% of figures are not really need in the paper.
I still think that some figures are not need in the manuscript (e.g., Figs. 3, 4, 5). These figures should be removed from the manuscript or moved to the supplementary materials.
According to the suggestions, figures are removed from the text.
Please also correct the English and structure of present figure's and table's captions.
Captions have been changed.
-There is different style of using of "A", "A-" "(A)" in the figures and tables captions along text. Please use the same style along whole text.
Corrected
-The caption of Table 1 need mode details. Now it is:
" Table 1. Rates and constants established for the Sulejów Reservoir."
Please explain what did you meant by "rates" and "constants"
Caption has been changed and additional information has been add to the text.
-The caption of Fig. 14 is prepared careleslly and contains repetitions.
Corrected
The paper is describing one case studies from the Sulejów Reservoir. The title should be corrected to precisely pointing this information. Now the title is too general in relation to manuscript content.
Ok. Corrected.
In the corrected manuscript please pay more attention to information on how different scenarios affect different parameters. Please add values or describe relations obtained. Please describe the distribution of a given parameter modeled and observed through the year and evaluate its relation to algal blooms.
In my opinion the present form of the abstract is not acceptable. Please describe your findings using Background->methods/results->implications fashion. In the present form all this parts are mixed which make reading extremely difficult. Additionally, abstract contains many grammar and technical errors. Please correct the structure of first sentence. I recommend to begin this sentence from The aim of this article/work is
What do you meant by 3D water hydrodynamic and water quality model ?
The study was carried out in a frame of the MONSUL project (www.monsul.wipos.p.lodz.pl) during the study season: May and October 2015; obtain results were analyzed also with regard to the weather conditions. In my opinion this information is not important in the article published in international journal.
With satisfactory input data, the GEMSS model quantifies the response in the reservoir in a proper way. Please Describe GEMSS model first. What do you meant by proper way?
In the lines 382-383 you are still use the sentence With satisfactory input data, the model quantifies the response in the reservoir in a good way.
-what response you meant ?
-what do you meant by good way ?
Please specify to what aims the model outputs maybe acceptable or usefull.
Model evaluation should be carried out statistically e.g. by comparison the RMSE error between modeled and measured values. In the the paper I have not found such a comparison.
Modelling activities Please correct such errors in whole paper.
Corrected.
My additional corrections.
I suggest to revise the draft to adding more attention to results utilization for euthrophication and related algal bloom predictions (e.g. cyanobacteria). In my opinion this is the most interesting application of the results you were obtained. You were mentioned about this issue here and there in the manuscript but this informations are unstructurized. My suggestion is to prepare the whole draft in the following way
We use numerical models to predicts parameters which maybe usefull for evaluation of algal blooms occurrence.
We modeled a parameters a, b,c, d
Using our modeling and monitoring results we showed that parameter x,y,x is related to algal bloom.
We use our model to propose solution how to solve this problem
Abstract.
Lines 10-14. I suggest to change the structure and order of first two sentences to:
The aim of this work is to evaluate core variables of the ecological potential of the Sulejów Reservoir (temperature distribution etc. ..) using three-dimensional hydrodynamic model GEMSS-HDM 11 coupled with water quality model WASP EUTRO (GEMSS-WQM)
Both Introduction and structure of the paper has been changed. An abstract was corrected according to the reviewers suggestion.
Introduction
Line 33-37. I suggest to remove this lines and start the intro from line 37 or 41.
Corrected
Lines 47-52. Please give some examples for these general statements.
Information has been added.
Lines 57-60. I like these sentences. I would like to see such the story ad structure in the whole manuscript.
Lines 61-65. As above please add more details to this general statements. Highlight some key results from the works references here to explain readers what you mean.
Addidional information has been added.
Line 66-73. Please remove such the statements from the whole paper. There is no need to explain the history of digital computers, mathematical details and history of modeling!!!
This part has been removed from the text.
Line 74-84. I suggest to structurize these paragraphs based on the problems (euthtopication, cyano..) not on the history of this research.
Additional information concerning eutrophication phenomena has been added.
Line 102. Please remove inter alia. Please add reference to each parameters which you are describing here.
Corrected.
Line 109. Maybe simply, The Sulejów Reservoir is representative of small lowland reservoir in central Europe ? I think that similar reservoirs in the populated areas of Germany or Belgium function in the same way. Water is an international journal and representativnes of results for only one country suggests very narrow applicability of the results. Please correct similar statements in the whole text.
Corrected
Line 116. Change prepared to proposed.
Corrected
Study area
Line 118. As above. Please delete such details. There are not so important for an international readers.
Corrected
Figure 1. Add small map of Europe indicating the Poland.
Additional map has ben added to Fig.1
Methodology
Line 140. Change Methodology to methods
Corrected
Line 141-149. Please delete this general statements and starts from the Line 149.
Corrected
Line 161-162. I dont understand this sentence.
Sentence has been removed from the text
Line 173. Please remove.
Corrected.
Line 176-179. Please remove.
Corrected.
Line 264. Please correct to based on the above unceratinities
Corrected.
Line 265-266. I dont understand this sentence.
Sentence has been removed from the text
Discussion
Present version of discussion is completely lacking comparison of the results obtained with the other case studies. It is not acceptable in an international journal. I recommend to use all key works in the topic (e.g., those cited in the intro) to prepare discussion of your results and proposed solution.
Discussion has been changed, additional information was added to this part of the paper.
Conclusion
Based on the revised version of discussuion please rewrite the conclusion section.
Conclusion section has been rewritten
Line 370-376. Delete this sentences or move to the intro.
Corrected.
Line 378. was used despite can be used
Corrected.
Line 379-383. Delete this sentence add give two-three sentence about key parameters triggering algal blom modeled for Sulejów Reservoir.
Corrected.
Please give some examples of such decision.
Line 384-388. Please remove.
Corrected.
Line 388-390. Please move to the discussion and add more details and implications to this fact.
Corrected.
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments: The work is very interesting. However, there are minor gaps in the content and no literature-based discussion of the results.
ABSTRACT Too little about modeling, modeling tools. After all, the topic of the work is "Modeling ...." Consider changing the title or enhancing modeling. Line 11. 'artificial reservoir' ??? All you need is reservoir. All reservoirs are artificial.
INTRODUCTION Lines 43-45 You do not mention in the introduction remote sensing tools in water quality testing in reservoirs. Teedetection is also successfully used, e.g. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12203414 Lines 46-52 New works on 3D models have appeared: https://doi.org/10.3390/s20092626 It is possible that these works can also be used in the Discussion chapter Lines 102-108 There is no citation of this data about the Sulejów reservoir Line 115 Specify the GEMSS model as Generalized Environmental Modeling System for Surfacewaters. You only list it far below
STUDY AREA Table 1. If these are only your measurement results, it does not require citing. If not, please provide data source.
METHODS What is the resolution of the computational mesh? What does the third point in Fig. 4 mean? Third buoy? Fig. 6. The proposed distribution of measuring points in the Lacustrine zone is puzzling. Why are they arranged longitudinally and not transversely on the expansion of the reservoir? Fig.7. What does RDCP mean? Maybe it's about ADCP?
RESULTS Table 1 should be Table 2. I do not understand the title of this table 1 (2). Fig. 13. Are the velocity vectors in the legend scaled in relation to the data on the map. A - F?
DISCUSSION There is no discussion of the results with the results of other researchers. These results can be considered reliable if they are compared with the results published in other works on the subject. Show off in the discussion that you know literature and the results of similar studies
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript entitled „Modelling and monitoring of hydrodynamics and surface water quality in the Sulejow dam reservoir, Poland”
Listed comments are valuable and helped to improve our paper.
We have studied all comments carefully and have made correction point by point.
General comments: The work is very interesting. However, there are minor gaps in the content and no literature-based discussion of the results.
ABSTRACT Too little about modeling, modeling tools. After all, the topic of the work is "Modeling ...." Consider changing the title or enhancing modeling.
Abstract has been changed, additional information about the modeling tool has been added.
Line 11. 'artificial reservoir' ??? All you need is reservoir. All reservoirs are artificial.
Corrected
INTRODUCTION Lines 43-45 You do not mention in the introduction remote sensing tools in water quality testing in reservoirs. Teedetection is also successfully used, e.g. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12203414 Lines 46-52
In this paper we focused more on monitoring and modeling tools, we used ADPC to validate our model. But we have already planned another article concerning the use on remote sensing tool to control algae blooms more efficiently and indicated article will for sure be cited there.
New works on 3D models have appeared: https://doi.org/10.3390/s20092626 It is possible that these works can also be used in the Discussion chapter Lines 102-108
Indicated article has been added.
There is no citation of this data about the Sulejów reservoir Line 115 Specify the GEMSS model as Generalized Environmental Modeling System for Surfacewaters. You only list it far below
Corrected
STUDY AREA Table 1. If these are only your measurement results, it does not require citing. If not, please provide data source.
A source of data has been added.
METHODS What is the resolution of the computational mesh?
Various computational meshes were analyzed and we correlated the obtained results with the mesh resolution. Ultimately, the resolution of the computational mesh is 10,000 elements
What does the third point in Fig. 4 mean? Third buoy?
Figure 4 (now Figure 3) has been corrected.
Fig. 6. The proposed distribution of measuring points in the Lacustrine zone is puzzling. Why are they arranged longitudinally and not transversely on the expansion of the reservoir?
Analyzes with the use of ADCP were of course conducted along the indicated points. In the lake part of the reservoir, the cross-sections along which the measurements were carried out were arranged more densely. We used the form of points, not lines to make the image more readable.
Fig.7. What does RDCP mean? Maybe it's about ADCP?
Corrected
RESULTS Table 1 should be Table 2.
Corrected
I do not understand the title of this table 1 (2).
Corrected
Fig. 13. Are the velocity vectors in the legend scaled in relation to the data on the map. A - F?
Yes, velocity vectors were scaled in relations to the concentration of chlorophyll a.
DISCUSSION There is no discussion of the results with the results of other researchers. These results can be considered reliable if they are compared with the results published in other works on the subject. Show off in the discussion that you know literature and the results of similar studies
Discussion chapter has been changed, additional papaer have been add to the text.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper appears to be a resubmission of one in September 2020 which this reviewer had the opportunity to review and appears to address the comments made at that time.
The paper is very well written, researched, and presented. My comments are mainly editorial in nature, and easy to remedy.
Line 96: “Elements, that” to “Elements that”.
Line 119: “reservoir” to “reservoirs”
Lines 123-124: In Table 1 the length of the shoreline should be 46875.
Line 129: “eight” should be “eighth”
Line 159: Should [61] be [63]?
Line 189: “conctituents” should be “constituents”
Line 202: It is not clear to this reviewer what “…in opposite directions…” is referring to.
Line 227: Did the authors mean to say “...were compared daily for the month of September…”?
Line 272: The word “model” is not necessary
Line 306: Fig.12 is not referenced in the main text
Line 507: “Waterland” should be “Water and”
Lines 568-581: References 71 through 76 are not cited in the text
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript entitled „Modelling and monitoring of hydrodynamics and surface water quality in the Sulejow dam reservoir, Poland”
Listed comments are valuable and helped to improve our paper.
We have studied all comments carefully and have made correction point by point.
Line 96: “Elements, that” to “Elements that”.
Corrected
Line 119: “reservoir” to “reservoirs”
Corrected
Lines 123-124: In Table 1 the length of the shoreline should be 46875.
Corrected
Line 129: “eight” should be “eighth”
Corrected
Line 159: Should [61] be [63]?
Corrected
Line 189: “conctituents” should be “constituents”
Corrected
Line 202: It is not clear to this reviewer what “…in opposite directions…” is referring to.
This line was changed in the new version of the manuscrpit
Line 227: Did the authors mean to say “...were compared daily for the month of September…”?
Corrected, according to the reviewer suggestion
Line 272: The word “model” is not necessary
Corrected
Line 306: Fig.12 is not referenced in the main text
Corrected
Line 507: “Waterland” should be “Water and”
Corrected
Lines 568-581: References 71 through 76 are not cited in the text
Corrected
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
You were did good work. Most of my concerns were addressed. I have only to points to correct before publication.
Line 54. "Total error between computed and measured velocity of about 10-15% is a reasonable assumption" should be corrected to "Total error between computed and measured velocity is estimated at 10-15%"
Best Regards,
Author Response
Thank You very much.
The indicated sentence has been changed.
Best regards
Aleksandra Ziemińska-Stolarska
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper and figures are prepared very carelessly and not follow the author instruction for Water journal. Manuscript lacks line numbers, the figures should be corrected (no it looks like printscreens).
The English of the paper is very week and needs significant corrections by native speaker to be readable. For example fourth sentence in the abstract completely lacks a subject.
In my opinion manuscript should be shorten ( in the present form it contains above 20 figures). About 80% of figures are not really need in the paper.
The paper is describing one case studies from the Sulejów Reservoir. The title should be corrected to precisely pointing this information. Now the title is too general in relation to manuscript content.
In the corrected manuscript please pay more attention to information on how different scenarios affect different parameters. Please add values or describe relations obtained. Please describe the distribution of a given parameter modeled and observed through the year and evaluate it’s relation to algal blooms.
In my opinion the present form of the abstract is not acceptable. Please describe your findings using “Background->methods/results->implications” fashion. In the present form all this parts are mixed which make reading extremely difficult. Additionally, abstract contains many grammar and technical errors. Please correct the structure of first sentence. I recommend to begin this sentence from „The aim of this article/work is …”
What do you meant by “3D water hydrodynamic and water quality model” ?
“The study was carried out in a frame of the MONSUL project (www.monsul.wipos.p.lodz.pl) during the study season: May and October 2015; obtain results were analyzed also with regard to the weather conditions”. In my opinion this information is not important in the article published in international journal.
“With satisfactory input data, the GEMSS model quantifies the response in the reservoir in a proper way”. Please Describe GEMSS model first. What do you meant by proper way?
Model evaluation should be carried out statistically e.g. by comparison the RMSE error between modeled and measured values. In the the paper I have not found such a comparison.
“Modelling activities” Please correct such errors in whole paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
INTRODUCTION
The authors mention the importance of hydrodynamic conditions, but there is no indication of the rate of water exchange in reservoirs an important hydrological indicator.
page 2. I have doubts about whether the authors do not infringe the rights of other authors by using the sentence:
"With the understanding of the eutrophication processes and hydrodynamics, as well as with more advanced computing capability, multidimensional lake and reservoir models have been developed and applied to study water quality problems"
Especially the fragment of the sentence "... eutrophication processes and hydrodynamics, as well as with more advanced computing capability, multidimensional lake ..." and is directly used in Kuo et al. 2006 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.03.006
I recommend drawing the authors' attention to other parts of your text where wholesale quoting is used.
The authors probably forgot to present the purpose of their work!
STUDY AREA
The authors did not indicate the main works characterizing Sulejow Reservoir: Ambrożewski, Z. 1980; Galicka 1996. Moreover, the authors incorrectly use citations of works that do not contain original information and are a duplication of other works. For example, used for the general characteristics of the reservoir in [48] - Zieminska-Stolarska et al. 2013, is not the original source of information.
There are many works on the Sulejów Reservoir, and only two works are given to this manuscript [48, 49].
Fig. 1. The drawing is not complete. There is no explanation as to where the tested object is located on the European or national scale. There is no description of the names of hydrographic features.
METHODS
Similar water quality monitoring is carried out on other reservoirs, including the Goczałkowice Reservoir. Shouldn't there be references to a similar approach to monitoring on Goczałkowice Reservoir? See works: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcbee.2014.10.009
Fig. 4 and 5. I am afraid that the maps are not your property.
The data in Figures 2, 4, 5 and 7 should be integrated on one reservoir map. Remember that we put emphasis on professionalism, so presenting in numerous drawings insignificant details - dots, observation points deteriorate the quality of work. Multiplication of drawings is unacceptable. You have too many - 19 figures.
RESULTS
Fig. 3 and Figs. 14-19 are the results of the model. The resolution of the model is selected correctly and enables legibility. I think it is possible to integrate into a smaller number of graphics so that it is easy to compare the results. A high standard of results processing is required here. Insert a few graphics into one collective figure.
Tab. 1. It should be a three-line table. The References column should contain numbers as in the References chapter. Abbreviations should be explained under the table, e.g. apc - .......
In the text, you write that "The processes are described by mathematical formulas which includes coefficients of each of the process". I did not find in the methods an explanation of what mathematical equations are meant.
DISCUSSION
Replace "Polish monitoring program" with "Polish State Monitoring".
Why in the discussion the authors did not refer to the research results of other authors who worked on the Sulejów Reservoir? After all, there are a lot of papers on biological and chemical indicators: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2005.04.031; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2005.04.031; https://doi.org/10.2478/v10104-012-0001-7; https://doi.org/10.2478/v10104-009-0022-z; https://doi.org/10.1016/S0990-7440(03)00014-7; https://doi.org/10.2478/v10104-009-0045-5; .........
The authors should prove that the achieved results are new, hence a discussion with the results of research on other objects in the world is needed. However, this has not been done here (no works have been cited). Therefore, it is difficult to assess the uniqueness of these studies.
Reviewer 3 Report
This study entitled “Modelling and monitoring of hydrodynamics and surface water quality in dam reservoir, Poland” developed a 3D water hydrodynamic and water quality model for future water management planning and implementation.
I personally enjoyed the methodology and the qualitative result of this study. However, it is a lack of some information that needs to be stated clearly. After a minor revision is made for enhancing its understanding, the manuscript would be possible to be published as a research article. The reviewer’s comments are listed below:
- Turbulence plays an important role in the mixing of suspended particulate matter. I suggest the authors interpret more about the methodology of turbulence simulation (e.g., what is the turbulence closure? What is the value of turbulence viscosity used in the simulation?) in the section of methodology.
- Please state clearly the time of the bathymetric map used for the simulation in figure 2 and the content.
- I suggest the authors point out the location of the buoys in figure 3 to enhance its understanding.
- On page 8, 3rd paragraph, what is the standard deviation of the acoustic measurements? Please state it clearly in the content.
- The authors mentioned “RDCP” in figure 8. Was it the same as ADCP or different? Please clarify “RDCP”.
- At what depth the velocity value represented in figure 8? Or was the velocity in figure 8 was the depth-averaged value? Please clarify.
- I found that points 2, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 20 did not correlate well in figure 8, similar to points 13, 19, 23, and 29. I suggest the authors clarify the criteria for determining the results of the points which correlate well.
- Please state clearly the relative error between the simulated and measured results shown in figures 9, 10, and 11. It is suggested that a table or a figure can be created to demonstrate the values.
Reviewer 4 Report
A well written and clearly presented paper. My comments are mainly editorial to improve the reading quality of the paper.
- The last sentence in the section “Introduction” references Sulejow Reservoir with no reference. A GIS based map showing the geographical location of the reservoir would be helpful.
- Figure 1 would benefit with a GIS based map (comment #1), and labelling the tributary inflows and outflows to orient the reader to the geographical location and scale.
- In Figure 3 the legend “Grid Depth” is somewhat confusing considering the sentence just preceding refers to “…constant cell thickness”. Is depth really referring to average spatial cell width?
- In Figure 4, typical GIS metadata such as scale bar and north arrow would be helpful.
- Figure 8 (and explained in a following sentence in the text) shows discrepancy between modelled results and observed data seems to also point to the geographical location of the the comparison points. In other words, model data deviated more from the observed data in the shallower part of the reservoir.
