Morphological Evolution Characteristics of River Cross-Sections in the Lower Weihe River and Their Response to Streamflow and Sediment Changes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, the work is of a good scientific standard and fits in with the hydrology issues being addressed. My only real comments are that there is a lack of formal discussion and that the authors used to many times quotation which I do not understand, and more generally, that the text in some areas could be improved and I have tried to be helpful to correct this in the comments below.
Line 46. Should be He instead of HE.
Lines 56-58. Authors wrote: “Some other studies…” and they refer only to two of them. I would really encourage authors to look at their data more generally and in broader context. See for example:
Bedload transport in two creeks at the ice-free area of the Baranowski Glacier, King George Island, West Antarctica, Polish Polar Research 38 (1), 21-39
Grain size distribution of bedload transport in a glaciated catchment (Baranowski Glacier, King George Island, Western Antarctica), Water 10 (4), 360
to improve the introduction and discussion sections.
Line 99. km “2” should be upper index.
Line 117. The general view of the location of the study will improve the understanding of the research done. Please add a new general map.
Section. 2.2. There is a lack of the description of data collection method. The answer for the following question is required: How this data was collected in the field? The paper should be self-contained although the authors based on the published data.
Lines 138 and 158. “Where” should not be written by capital letter.
Lines 289 and 365. Cv once is written as italic and once not. It should be standardized.
Line 365. “in” was used two times in the sentence.
Lines 382-384. Authors used following words: “larger”, “massive” and “biggest”. Their meanings should be explained as in (below)
Lines 464-465 they wrote: “large floods” and “the first one was a small flood”. I am the one who no longer completely understands which is which.
Section: 4. DISCUSSION
This is the weakest part of the work. Throughout the text, the authors refer to paper [36] only once and that in its third part i.e., in chapter 4.3. For example, in lines 403-407 text requires citation. Then in the lines 410-427 text require some reference to current knowledge. Perhaps the items previously indicated may help.
Lines 433 the authors wrote: "Under the same hydraulic conditions". Then what were the conditions? However, this is generally a hydrological work not a hydraulic one. If it is not, then I would like to see what the values of the Froud number or Reynolds number were for all day?
Again, in line 435 "In" should not be written by capital letter.
Also, figure 11 should be in the results section and not in the discussion.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We would like to thank you for your efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We have replied your comments point by point, revised the manuscript accordingly. Please see the attachment to find our itemized responses in below and revisions/corrections in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The authors are recommended to conduct a thorough proofread, there are quite a lot of typos spreading in the manuscript. For instance, the use of semicolon and colon are not accurate in most places.
2. Line 159, the symbol Z_{\apha/2} is not defined.
3. One of the conclusion the authors have is the significant change is caused by human activities, but it is not well explained in the manuscript.
4. The authors tried to link the response of river cross-section and shape with flow condition and sediment properties. It is purely based on statistical analysis, it would benefit the audience to provide some physical explanation.
5. The analysis is based on data from 2006 to 2018, the time series for statistical analysis seem to be not long enough. Are there historic data to be used in the analysis?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We would like to thank you for your efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We have replied your comments point by point, revised the manuscript accordingly. Please see the attachment to find our itemized responses in below and revisions/corrections in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The changes made by the authors are very much appreciated. The work has been significantly improved and my suggestions taken into account. In my opinion, the work can now be published in this current version.
