Driving Mechanisms of the Evolution and Ecological Water Demand of Hulun Lake in Inner Mongolia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A general comment and an overview:
In light of recent advances in functional evolution and its driving force analysis of the structure of inland wetlands, comparison and study on dynamic change is an interesting topic. Various models, optimization, and control of research progress on environmental impact systems, and their effects on ecological and environmental evolution in the Hulun Lake wetlands and their surrounding areas, and their effects on their respective fates, are not provided in this paper. Interestingly, I can suggest a major revision for the paper. However, it will require the author to thoroughly examine the material and provide any missing information that fills in the gaps, notably in the material, methods, and discussion sections. The next revision should address the grammatical errors I found. I have detailed my comments below. I recommend including a section on predicting models under different driving mechanisms and ecological water demand scenarios as well as using different materials for each. Please comment on the following:
Specific comments:
In this paper, dozens of references were cited, but no motivations or current research advances were discussed. Hulun Lake's volume exhibited a fluctuating increasing-decreasing-increasing trend and was also summarized to show its importance to the scientific community. Papers focusing on only data analysis were not accepted by science journals. Please address these problems:
Figure 2 A correlation between experimental data and predicted values of the dynamic changes in Hulun Lake's water level, area, and reservoir capacity in different years needs to be established. Can you explain your choice of sites?
Please expound on this further and see Figures 3 and 4. Is this related to climate change? Could human activity play a role in it?
Constructive feedback:
In the methodology sections, there are several gaps that raise critical questions about the methods the authors will use to build their study upon them (please refer to my detailed comments). There is no organization in the methodology section. There is no mention of the data sources or how they were used. There are also vague results mentioned. Overall, the study appears to have a clear purpose and to be of value to the research community.
What are the most recent conceptual notions and frameworks that will advance our understanding of an analysis of changes in Hulun Lake's water level and salt content?
What are the most relevant methods and tools for ecological risk assessment and human health risk assessment and valuation for benchmarking of uncertainty in combining multiple methods linked to water balance variations for Hulun Lake during the last 55 years?
Which novel water sustainability technologies could bridge local to global scales through cross-scale assessment, mapping, and modeling?
Interoperability across multiple domains is facilitated by the open data paradigm, as described in the introduction, enabling cross-scale development of the open-source software ecosystem. Given that water is one of the most critical socio-economic areas, security must be well defined to ensure the necessary amount of water. Hence, besides security at the technology level (data collection, data processing, and data storage), we need to put together solutions in a scalable way for rapid integration. However, it has not been widely accepted as it is. It is difficult to find significance in this study for the scientific community since it was conducted in such an obscure area. The author of this study improved or regulated the model to take into account the complexity of chemical components involved in. variation trends of social factors during 2000–2014. Were there any differences in the effect of ingress runoff volume changes in the Hulun Lake drainage basin during 1960–2011?
What lessons can be learned from the use of evaporation changes in the Hulun Lake drainage basin during 1960–2011?
The above points should be discussed clearly and early in the manuscript. It should be emphasized that the manuscript deals only with coal dust particle size effects. Then the manuscript should be reviewed for consistency with respect to this point. Since the theoretical basis and calculation method for maximizing the influence of electric current on bacterial viability in wastewater treatment have been mentioned in the text many times, I believe that the motivations and innovations of the study should be summarized through a wide review of the latest publications. All these questions should be addressed in the article.
Summary:
The design and layout of the manuscript have been well-developed. However, the manuscript's writing style is of the utmost importance. The article contains several grammatical errors, unclear sentences, and misused words. In order to avoid a lengthy discussion, I will not elaborate on each issue. A thorough technical writing review is strongly recommended for the authors. In this scientific discipline, several words/terms aren't usually used. This study primarily presents statistical results with no physical interpretation and discussion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is interesting. I recommend a major revision with the following comments:
1. The novelty of this study is not clear. I suggest the authors address this point in the introduction.
2. Section 3: the locations of weather stations and hydrologic stations should be displayed in Figure 1. The detailed information of meteorological variables (which meteorological variables) should be given in this section. In addition, how to estimate evaporation data? Please clarify it.
3. Section 3 only presents the data used, but lacks the methodology. The statistical methods used in this study (e.g., water balance methods, the calculation of minimum ecological water demand) should be clearly presented in this section.
4. The evaporation data is available from 1960-2011 (Figure 5), which is not consistent with the other meteorological variables. Please clarify it in data introductions.
5. Conclusion is missing. The conclusions should be summarized after discussions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Many issues have been raised, but doubt remains over the statistical analysis itself. Why is the coefficient of determination so low? Figure 12: The correlation analysis of the difference in capacity in the balance item and other variables seems wrong. The validated data are meaningless when the variables are poorly predicted by the model. How can this be explained?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the revised version.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
