Sedimentation Rates: Anthropogenic Impacts and Environmental Changes in Transitional Water Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The title of the manuscript Sedimentation rates: Anthropogenic Impacts and Environmental Changes in Transitional Water Systems is of interest to the WATER journal. I find interesting the paper and your idea. However, in my opinion, in its present form the paper needs improvements. The main aspect to be reviewed is following.

General Comments 

 

- Abstract (L:13-24) – This part of the manuscript should be reworked/supplemented. A concise and factual abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions.

 

  - Introduction (L:29-83):

– The text should be reworked: essence of the matter should be more emphasized and the text can be improved by clearly pointing out the targeting research gap, the goal of research and why your investigation is needed?

- L: 67-74 - this part of the text reminds rather results;

- L:66 – “..was carried out by Sfriso et al. [23].”

- L:81 – “..to the different scenarios..” – this is not clear and should be explained in the text; What specific scenarios have been analyzed (with reference to the results and discussions)?. This part of the manuscript requires further explanation.

- L: 79 – 83 – this is not clear and should be explained; Please, explain in the text of the paper, e.g. why the results from the period 1989-2021 were compared with the results from the period 2018-2019, concerning two lagoons with significantly different characteristics (area, ecological conditions, etc.);

 

- Materials and Methods (L:85-297) - In reviewer’s opinion, this section should be reworked. In its current form, the text is a bit chaotic; Maybe a better solution would be to describe both research objects (The lagoon of Venice and Goro Lagoon) and then describe the research methodology? e.g. in L:102 “..collected by traps..” there is mentioned about traps, which are described later in the manuscript in subsection 2.2 - this part of the manuscript should be reworked.

- Fig. 2 and L:126; 128 - were the traps made of stainless steel or black steel? (metal corrosion is visible) – please, explain in the text;

 

- L: 148 – 373 - In reviewer’s opinion,, section 3. Results should be combined with section 4. Discussion and named “Results and Discussion” – it would be a better solution. The similarities and differences between this study and other findings should be summarized and explained.

 

- Conclusions - In reviewer’s opinion, this part of the manuscript should be supplemented – concise, strong conclusions are missing, several clear sentences of the summary of results would be interesting;

- L: 391 - 392 - why the period “5-10 years” was indicated? – please, explain in the text.

 

Specific Comments

 

Figures and Tables:

Fig. 4 – In reviewer’s opinion, combining the graphs (2019 with 2020-21) would be a better solution (a common set of bar charts with a different color for a given period of time) - this will reduce the number of charts from 10 to 5;

Fig. 6 – please, check the description, this is not clear – L: 265: „In black” or „In blue”?

 

 

References:

Not checked - the list of publications should be corrected, standardised and adapted to the requirements of the Water journal (eg. L: 448-476 – not mentioned in the text)

 

Regards,

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The title of the manuscript Sedimentation rates: Anthropogenic Impacts and Environmental Changes in Transitional Water Systems is of interest to the WATER journal. I find interesting the paper and your idea. However, in my opinion, in its present form the paper needs improvements. The main aspect to be reviewed is following.

General Comments 

 - Abstract (L:13-24) – This part of the manuscript should be reworked/supplemented. A concise and factual abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions.

The abstract was revised according to the suggestions

Introduction (L:29-83):

– The text should be reworked: essence of the matter should be more  emphasized and the text can be improved by clearly pointing out the targeting research gap, the goal of research and why your investigation is needed?

Also this part was integrated focusing on the goal of the research.

L: 67-74 - this part of the text reminds rather results;

These are results of another research cited in the text as previous paper. Therefore, they are reported to highlight the differences with the present paper.

- L:66 – “..was carried out by Sfriso et al. [23].”

Ok it was added

- L:81 – “..to the different scenarios..” – this is not clear and should be explained in the text; What specific scenarios have been analyzed (with reference to the results and discussions)?. This part of the manuscript requires further explanation.

We have added the scenarios and the interested periods.

- L: 79 – 83 – this is not clear and should be explained; Please, explain in the text of the paper, e.g. why the results from the period 1989-2021 were compared with the results from the period 2018-2019, concerning two lagoons with significantly different characteristics (area, ecological conditions, etc.);

 We have added the motivation of this comparison. Indeed, in this lagoon clam fishing activities already occur but in concessionary areas with a low impact in sediment resuspension. This is an important result than should be underlined.

 - Materials and Methods (L:85-297) - In reviewer’s opinion, this section should be reworked. In its current form, the text is a bit chaotic; Maybe a better solution would be to describe both research objects (The lagoon of Venice and Goro Lagoon) and then describe the research methodology? e.g. in L:102 “..collected by traps..” there is mentioned about traps, which are described later in the manuscript in subsection 2.2 - this part of the manuscript should be reworked.

As suggested we have transferred the description of sedimentation traps in the following subsection and revised all the sectuion.

- Fig. 2 and L:126; 128 - were the traps made of stainless steel or black steel? (metal corrosion is visible) – please, explain in the text;

We have inserted further information on the text.

- L: 148 – 373 - In reviewer’s opinion,, section 3. Results should be combined with section 4. Discussion and named “Results and Discussion” – it would be a better solution. The similarities and differences between this study and other findings should be summarized and explained.

As with other works of this type we prefer to keep the two sections separate. However, we have transferred from the "Results" section some parts which are more suitable for the "Discussion" and deleted some redundant parts.

- Conclusions - In reviewer’s opinion, this part of the manuscript should be supplemented – concise, strong conclusions are missing, several clear sentences of the summary of results would be interesting;

This section was rewritten focusing on the main results of the paper

- L: 391 - 392 - why the period “5-10 years” was indicated? – please, explain in the text.

This number was deleted but the prediction of a future positive trend is presented by the trends of SRs in some stations and in the whole lagoon.

Specific Comments

Figures and Tables:

Fig. 4 – In reviewer’s opinion, combining the graphs (2019 with 2020-21) would be a better solution (a common set of bar charts with a different color for a given period of time) - this will reduce the number of charts from 10 to 5;

As suggested the graphs of the two years were combined into a single figure. In addition, we have also added the concentrations of total phosphorus.

Fig. 6 – please, check the description, this is not clear – L: 265: „In black” or „In blue”?

We have integrated the information presented by this figure and changed “in black” with “in blue”

References:

Not checked - the list of publications should be corrected, standardised and adapted to the requirements of the Water journal (eg. L: 448-476 – not mentioned in the text)

I apologize it was a mistake. Now all citations have been checked and should be correct.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Venice is a pearl of the world. Nevertheless, before the Republic of Venice, this city was threatened in recent decades.

Any work that helps to clarify the facts about its endangerment and preserve it for the future is extremely important.

The efforts that the authors have made with their work are also a contribution to these efforts. The authors wanted to assess anthropogenic influence and environmental changes in the Venice and Goro lagoons based on sedimentation rates. Their efforts are commendable, but the way they are written is not fluid and not easy to understand.

Introduction

The statements in lines 39-43 should be supported by references.

Line 53, long-term SRs must have an explanation of the abbreviation when it first appears in the text.

Line 62, scarce information, means that there is certain information so it should be listed as a reference for it.

Lines 75-77 are not very clear, did the authors themselves or other authors do this? Either way, the way it is written, it is not clear who did it?

Materials and methods

Basically the material and methods are written correctly, the only problem is that the results presented later do not agree with M&M.

In fact, under Figure 1 it only states what the actual sampling period is, it would be much better if this was clearly stated in the text. Especially since the period between which and the year in which the author conducted the study is given in the text. Why? To see clearly the result of their research and also to know with which other periods their results are compared.

Magic number 79.

In M&M's, Line 103, the authors give 79 years, and in the results, line 206, the authors give 79 stations? Materials and methods need to be clearly written, as well as results.

In M&M the authors list 3 sites in the Venice lagoon. 1. Alberoni, 2 San Giuliano and 3 Sacca Sessola. However, in the Results, the authors give results for 8 sites, and to make matters even better, for site 1 Fusina, the author’s state that "we have 5 sampling years." Where do the 5 years come from, if there are 3 years under the picture? Finally, if there are 3 sites, results for 3 sites should be presented, if there are 8, those 8 sites should be listed in M&M. If sampling took 3 years, there can be no results for 5 years. If the sampling lasted 5 years, then it will be written in M&M that it lasted 5 years, in M&M, i.e. 79 years. However, M&M must meet the results.

Results

‘’Provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.’’ That's what the instructions for authors say.

However, these results cover ages that do not correspond to ages from M&M, as well as sampling sites.

Discussion and Conclusions

The discussion is nicely written, but too modest in relation to the results. In particular, after the authors write their results, the discussion will be enriched by comparisons of their results with those from other years.

 

References

The spacing between words, words and brackets must be consistent.

Writing of references must also be consistent, whether there is a period or a coma between references in parentheses. In any case, everything must be written according to the instructions for authors.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Venice is a pearl of the world. Nevertheless, before the Republic of Venice, this city was threatened in recent decades.

Any work that helps to clarify the facts about its endangerment and preserve it for the future is extremely important.

The efforts that the authors have made with their work are also a contribution to these efforts. The authors wanted to assess anthropogenic influence and environmental changes in the Venice and Goro lagoons based on sedimentation rates. Their efforts are commendable, but the way they are written is not fluid and not easy to understand.

Introduction

The statements in lines 39-43 should be supported by references.

As suggested we have added some references.

Line 53, long-term SRs must have an explanation of the abbreviation when it first appears in the text.

We have inserted the explanation o this abbreviation

Line 62, scarce information, means that there is certain information so it should be listed as a reference for it.

The references have been added

Lines 75-77 are not very clear, did the authors themselves or other authors do this? Either way, the way it is written, it is not clear who did it?

All the data were collected by our research team and this information was added in the text.

Materials and methods

Basically the material and methods are written correctly, the only problem is that the results presented later do not agree with M&M.

In fact, under Figure 1 it only states what the actual sampling period is, it would be much better if this was clearly stated in the text. Especially since the period between which and the year in which the author conducted the study is given in the text. Why? To see clearly the result of their research and also to know with which other periods their results are compared.

In Fig. 1 the stations sampled in the whole period were only reported.  However, the text was integrated with additional information and for a better view and interpretation of the results we have also added a table (Table S1, Supplementary Material) with all the dates and sampling stations.

Magic number 79.

Yes the total number of annual samples is 79.

In M&M's, Line 103, the authors give 79 years, and in the results, line 206, the authors give 79 stations? Materials and methods need to be clearly written, as well as results.

Yes, the referee's comment is correct. In fact, the number of years of sampling is 79 but the number of stations is lower as some stations have been monitored in different periods. We have corrected the text both in the “Materials and Methods” and in the “Results”.

In M&M the authors list 3 sites in the Venice lagoon. 1. Alberoni, 2 San Giuliano and 3 Sacca Sessola. However, in the Results, the authors give results for 8 sites, and to make matters even better, for site 1 Fusina, the author’s state that "we have 5 sampling years." Where do the 5 years come from, if there are 3 years under the picture? Finally, if there are 3 sites, results for 3 sites should be presented, if there are 8, those 8 sites should be listed in M&M. If sampling took 3 years, there can be no results for 5 years. If the sampling lasted 5 years, then it will be written in M&M that it lasted 5 years, in M&M, i.e. 79 years. However, M&M must meet the results.

I probably wasn't clear. The three stations indicated are those which were monitored for the first time in 1989-90, then there were all the subsequent 76 sampling years. In the graphs of Fig. 3, as indicated in the text, only the sedimentation rates of the stations that have been sampled three times at least are reported in order to highlight the changes that have occurred over time in those stations. Instead, all the sedimentation axes in chronological order are shown in Fig. 6. All this information has also been better clarified in the text.

Results

‘’Provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.’’ That's what the instructions for authors say.

However, these results cover ages that do not correspond to ages from M&M, as well as sampling sites.

This section was revised deleting some redundant parts and some explanations that were inserted in the “Discussion” section. In addition it was integrated with additional information and presentation of the results.

Discussion and Conclusions

The discussion is nicely written, but too modest in relation to the results. In particular, after the authors write their results, the discussion will be enriched by comparisons of their results with those from other years.

Additional information has been included in the text in order to reinforce the results obtained.

References

The spacing between words, words and brackets must be consistent. Writing of references must also be consistent, whether there is a period or a coma between references in parentheses. In any case, everything must be written according to the instructions for authors.

All the references were revised and adjusted.

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I have no comments.

Best regards,

Author Response

No adjustments were required

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors' efforts to improve the final version of the manuscript are evident.

I congratulate you on your efforts.

The only thing missing is that the references from lines 53, 69, and 347 be corrected and written according to the instructions for writing references in the text.