Assessing the Effects of Miedzyodrze Area Revitalization on Estuarine Flows in the Odra River

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is recommended to publish this manuscript after following comments are addressed

1. Abstract is too long. The background information regarding Miedzyodrze area cab be moved to introduction section.

2. Section 2 "General characteristics of the lower Odra River and the Miedzyodrze area" can be simplified and shortened by focusing on key background information relevant to this study.

3. The definitions of the abbreviations in Table 3 (such as NNQ, NNW, SNQ SNW, etc.) are vague.

4. Line 474, "Figure 24" is believed to be "Figure 11".

5. Table 6 is redundant. A clear statement in text is good enough. 

6. As shown in Table 6, the poorest fit is observed for case 3, with the highest error of 34.8% for Skosnica. This error is expected to be pointed out and explained in text.

7. There are two Figure 19 on pages 25 and 26, respectively.

The English language is acceptable after moderate editing (see some of the general comments).

Author Response

Thank you very much for the reviews. Below, I present the responses to the comments.

1. Abstract is too long. The background information regarding Miedzyodrze area cab be moved to introduction section.

The abstract has been shortened, and general modeling results have been included.

2. Section 2 "General characteristics of the lower Odra River and the Miedzyodrze area" can be simplified and shortened by focusing on key background information relevant to this study.

In my opinion, a detailed description of this area is essential for several reasons.

Firstly, the Międzyodrze region constitutes a crucial location for our research, enabling readers to grasp the context and unique characteristics of this area.

Secondly, the lack of detailed information about the Międzyodrze area in English literature may hinder the reproducibility and replication of our research by other scholars. Providing accurate data facilitates a precise understanding of the research conditions and makes it easier for other researchers to replicate our experiments in this specific location.

I acknowledge that the English literature may indeed lack such comprehensive descriptions of the Międzyodrze area. Therefore, in my publication, we have focused on delivering the most comprehensive and reliable description of this area to enable a better comprehension of the context of our research.

In conclusion, I believe that a detailed description of the Międzyodrze area is indispensable for our publication, considering its unique significance for the investigated issues and the necessity of providing precise information to the readers.

3. The definitions of the abbreviations in Table 3 (such as NNQ, NNW, SNQ SNW, etc.) are vague.

A sentence explaining the principle of calculating flows and characteristic water levels has been added

4. Line 474, "Figure 24" is believed to be "Figure 11".

Corrected

5. Table 6 is redundant. A clear statement in text is good enough. 

The table has been removed, and an additional description has been added to the text.

6. As shown in Table 6, the poorest fit is observed for case 3, with the highest error of 34.8% for Skosnica. This error is expected to be pointed out and explained in text.

The text mentioned this significant percentage error and explained why such a large error can occur.

7. There are two Figure 19 on pages 25 and 26, respectively.

Corrected

The English language is acceptable after moderate editing (see some of the general comments).

Thank you very much for your feedback. The text has been reviewed , and grammatical errors have been corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

literature and fiction is very weak.

Author Response

 Thank you for treating the review honestly.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments:

1.      The title effectively conveys the main focus of the manuscript. The abstract provides a clear overview of the study's objectives, highlighting the significance of the Miedzyodrze area and its potential influence on flows in the Lower Odra River network. However, the abstract could be further improved by providing specific numerical results or key findings to better entice readers to explore the entire manuscript.

2.      The introduction sets the context and importance of studying river estuaries and flood protection, with a specific focus on the Lower Odra River network. The objectives and rationale for the research are clearly stated. To strengthen the introduction, the authors could include more recent and relevant literature on estuarine hydrodynamics and flood protection to emphasize the novelty and significance of their study.

3.      The aim of the paper should be a little more highlighted in the last paragraph of the introduction. Go through the following recent article and cite accordingly- https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123284

4.      The conclusion provides a concise summary of the main findings and the potential benefits of dredging and renovating the Miedzyodrze channels. However, it could be strengthened by linking the findings to broader water management strategies and future research directions. It would be beneficial to highlight any limitations of the study and discuss potential uncertainties in the modeling approach.

5.      Highlights avenues for future research

6.      Increase the quality of the figures.

7.      The manuscript is generally well-written, but there are instances of grammatical errors and awkward sentence structures that need to be addressed. The authors should carefully proofread the text to ensure clarity and coherence.

Overall, the manuscript presents an important study on the Miedzyodrze area's influence on estuarine flows in the Lower Odra River network. By addressing the mentioned improvements and clarifying the methodology and model details, the manuscript has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field of estuarine hydrodynamics and flood management.

Must be improved.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the reviews. Below, I present the responses to the comments.

 

1. The title effectively conveys the main focus of the manuscript. The abstract provides a clear overview of the study's objectives, highlighting the significance of the Miedzyodrze area and its potential influence on flows in the Lower Odra River network. However, the abstract could be further improved by providing specific numerical results or key findings to better entice readers to explore the entire manuscript.

As requested by the editorial team and other reviewers, the abstract has been shortened, and in accordance with your request, general modeling results have been added.

2.      The introduction sets the context and importance of studying river estuaries and flood protection, with a specific focus on the Lower Odra River network. The objectives and rationale for the research are clearly stated. To strengthen the introduction, the authors could include more recent and relevant literature on estuarine hydrodynamics and flood protection to emphasize the novelty and significance of their study.

As requested, newer literature references regarding water management in the vicinity of Szczecin and its impact on water hydrodynamics have been added.

3.      The aim of the paper should be a little more highlighted in the last paragraph of the introduction. Go through the following recent article and cite accordingly- https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123284

Appropriate corrections have been made.

4.      The conclusion provides a concise summary of the main findings and the potential benefits of dredging and renovating the Miedzyodrze channels. However, it could be strengthened by linking the findings to broader water management strategies and future research directions. It would be beneficial to highlight any limitations of the study and discuss potential uncertainties in the modeling approach.

In the conclusions, information about the unfortunate lack of planned repair works has been added.

5. Highlights avenues for future research

Information about future research directions has been added.

6. Increase the quality of the figures.

The graphs have been improved. Unfortunately, the quality of figures 10-13 remains unchanged as they are directly generated from the Hec-Ras program, and I have no control over their quality.

7.      The manuscript is generally well-written, but there are instances of grammatical errors and awkward sentence structures that need to be addressed. The authors should carefully proofread the text to ensure clarity and coherence.

Thank you very much for your feedback. The text has been reviewed , and grammatical errors have been corrected.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

---The literature review should be expanded.

---The work area should be shown on the world map.

---At least 3-4 paragraphs of discussion should be written.  Discussion section should be written with reference to the literature.

---What are the limitations of Hec-Ras?

---Flowchart must be drawn

Author Response

Thank you very much for the reviews. Below, I present the responses to the comments.

The literature review should be expanded.

The literature has been expanded in accordance with the suggestion.

The work area should be shown on the world map.

The research area's geographical location has been included.

At least 3-4 paragraphs of discussion should be written.  Discussion section should be written with reference to the literature.

A discussion chapter has been introduced, accompanied by references to the literature.

What are the limitations of Hec-Ras?

In the discussion chapter, a mention of this has been incorporated.

Flowchart must be drawn

Considering the linear and sequential nature of the project timeline (lacking decision points), a flowchart was not included. Nonetheless, following the Reviewer's suggestion, the final sentence now encapsulates a summary of the steps undertaken to accomplish the study