Changes in Nutrient Concentrations and Limitations of Poyang Lake Associated with Socioeconomic Development in the Watershed from 1978 to 2021
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General Comments to Author:
This paper presents data on the concentrations of total phosphorus and total nitrogen, highlighting the shifts in the trophic state of a significant lake over an extended time period. The historical record it provides is intriguing and valuable. Additionally, the paper offers insights into a variety of indicators sourced from the lake's catchment area, which could potentially elucidate the drivers behind these observed changes. The paper has a few grammatical issues that should be resolved but overall is well-written and an enjoyable read; Although, I point out a few problems, I advise a thorough proofreading process prior to publication. In the spirit of constructive feedback, I've compiled several comments that I hope will prove beneficial to the authors.
Specific Comments:
- 23-24: please be explicit about what is meant by "different ways". The abstract should be more quantitative in general, as it currently lacks any specifics.
- 29: replace "while an" with "but a"
- 61-62: couldn't you argue that luxury uptake and the ability to store P as polyphosphates are biological mechanisms that allow at least some organisms to overcome P deficiency?
- 69-71: although there are some qualifications implied in the generality of these categories, I think it is necessary to provide a clearer caveat, explicitly stating that these thresholds are not universally applicable. As correctly highlighted in line 66, the ratios merely suggest the possibility of nutrient limitation
- 141 and elsewhere in manuscript: replace "literatures" with "studies"
- 155: "assessed"
- 159: the use of "society" here is awkward—you may want to consider replacing "society" with "social enterprise"
- 162: "closing to the top" is awkward and vague—do you mean plateauing since 2010?
- 171: just to be clear, this fertilizer N:P ratio is the ratio of the nutrients being applied to the land, and not in the water column. Is that correct? This should be specified in the text.
- 195-202: this text is repeated in lines 204-211 and again in lines 211-220and 230-236.
- 240: again, a nutrient ratio cannot "indicate"; it can "suggest". To indicate, you need to conduct a bioassay.
- 245: a minor quibble, but be careful where you place your modifiers. In this sentence, you want to modify the relationship with TN, not the verb "exhibited". Hence, "only" should be moved to after "relationship".
- 262: replace "As" with "With"
Figures:
- Figure 1: is it possible to include the river names on this figure, as well as have separate color backgrounds for the 5 major sub-basins? This will enhance reader understanding of the Poyang watershed.
- Figures 2-5: the blue shading should be explained in the caption. Presumably it is a confidence interval of some sort but there is no explanation.
Author Response
Thanks for the valuable comments. We’ve revised the whole manuscript. Specifically, we enhanced the logic of the writing in the introduction, added significance of the study, rearranged the conclusion and discussion, improved the quality of figures, as well as corrected grammar, spelling, and other writing errors. Please see the attachment for details.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper has examined the relationship between economic development and water quality in a sensitive lake in China using long term data. The research topic fits into journal's remit. The quantification of such relationship using reviewed data is innovative. The paper is well structured, easy to comprehend but there are minor issues which need to be addressed:
1) Please define 'urbanization': what does it exactly mean?
2) Data quality check: authors have reviewed the data for the lake from multiple sources to derive summary statistic data, e.g. mean. More details should be given to explain the procedures involved, including any criteria for rejecting or including any data. Authors have only introduced the mean values. More comments could be made about the data quality and variability.
3) Interpretation of correlation results: Authors have focussed on the statistic significance. Attention should also be given to the residual term. High residual values indicates that other unaccounted variables also play significant roles. This should be acknowledged.
4) Author has mentioned the potential contribution from the climate change and three gorge dam. More discussion could be added here.
Figure 1:
please add map legend and improve map layout.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
English writing could be improved. I have highlighted relevant parts in the attached document with some suggestions.
Author Response
Thanks for the valuable comments. We’ve revised the whole manuscript. Specifically, we enhanced the logic of the writing in the introduction, added significance of the study, rearranged the conclusion and discussion, improved the quality of figures, as well as corrected grammar, spelling, and other writing errors. Please see the attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors need to add spaces between text and references
The quality of the figures needs to be improved, particularly Figure 2
L. 175-176 please indicate years when the decrease was observed
Sources of high level of P and N need to be indicated, I suppose in the original research they are mentioned
Where similar studies performed for other lakes? If yes, authors need to mention it
What is the personal contribution of the authors to the review? Are authors working on the determination of the nutrients in the water?
Conclusion section needs to be supplemented with the authors opinion the problem.
Author Response
Thanks for the valuable comments. We’ve revised the whole manuscript. Specifically, we enhanced the logic of the writing in the introduction, added significance of the study, rearranged the conclusion and discussion, improved the quality of figures, as well as corrected grammar, spelling, and other writing errors. Please see the attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors took in the consideration all comments, manuscript can be accepted for publication.
