Evolution of Water–Sediment Situation and Attribution Analysis in the Upper Yangtze River, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: Evolution of water-sediment situation and attribution analysis in the upper Yangtze River, China

This paper investigates water-sediment relation and uses attribution analysis in the Yangtze River, China (upper river). It combines the IHA-RVA and genetic planning methods into its analysis. I found it giving useful guide to various river engineers’ communities, especially to the large river research communities such as Yangtze’s. Therefore, it presents a study that aligns with the interest of Water’s readers. However, a lot of the utilised references are seriously out-dated (at early 2000’s), and more recent and advanced papers need to be referred. Since this study inspects a complex issue related to river-sediment environment, more in-depth discussions should be deployed on different factors affecting it. I suggest below major points for revision:

 

1. Abstract: It is too long and unfocused. It needs shortening, and refocus to only the key findings in this study.   

2. Introduction: In the last paragraph, take away all the numberings. Besides the introduction and literature reviewing, the authors also need to better stress the novelty of this study. Also, the motivation of doing this study has to be linked to and stressed in the introduction.    

3. This study presents a fused approach of different methods. Hence it is crucial for different part of the fusion to be tested thoroughly to convince the proposed is workable. These tests have to be better linked together. Next, the applicability of the proposed method to other large rivers are not clear. Last, the river flow consists of very complex study with multiple factors to affect its accurate representation, hence wider form of analysis and discussion should be employed into this manuscript to deal with multiple affecting factors of river flow, even they are not directly investigated within this paper. In short, more discussion and explanation can make these clearer to the readers.   

4. Continue from previous pt.3, in the analysis of the real-world river, the channelling of the real flow is complex. Hence it is usually represented by the numerical model. One of such examples, in the river network we will usually observe compound or irregular shape. The authors should consider this factor using suitable literature referencing. 

a) Turbulent open-channel flows with variable depth across the channel. 1998, J Fluid Mech 222:617–646

b) Turbulent rectangular compound open channel flow study using multi-zonal approach, Environmental Fluid Mechanics, 2019, 19(3), 785-800.

c) Analytical modelling of sidewall turbulence effect on streamwise velocity profile using 2D approach: A comparison of rectangular and trapezoidal open channel flows, 2020, Journal of Hydro-environment Research, 32, 17-25.   

d) Modelling and analysis of river networks based on complex networks theory, Proceedings of the 2012 2nd International Conference on Computer and Information Application (ICCIA 2012).

e) Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Simulation of Wave Overtopping Characteristics for Different Coastal Structures, 2012, The Scientific World Journal, 2012, 1-10.

 

5. Furthermore, another factor key to this study is the complicated bedform by the actual river. One of the ways to reproduce its bed is by water-worked concept (to create a suitable bedform for analysis). This is one of the key issues that the authors have to considered to discuss into the paper to show the link to analyse the actual river.

a) Examining the physical components of boundary shear stress for water-worked gravel deposits. EARTH SURF PROC LAND, 35(10), 1240-1246.

b) Velocity Profile and Turbulence Structure Measurement Corrections for Sediment Transport-Induced Water-Worked Bed, 2017, Fluids (MDPI), 6(2), Article No. 86, pp. 1-11.

c) Velocity Distribution and 3D Turbulence Characteristic Analysis for Flow over Water-Worked Rough Bed, Water (MDPI), 2021, 9(9), Article No. 668, pp. 1-13.

 

6. Conclusion: No numberings. It should be formed in one paragraph. It should be more focused on only key findings. Last, it should also include the recommendation statement of how this present study can be continued.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper investigates the role of climate change and human activities on the water and sediment situation of the upper Yangtze River. The paper is interesting and I would suggest it for publication. However, the authors need to revise the paper based on the following minor comments.

1.      There are some typos in the text which need to be corrected.

2.      I think it is needed to add a sentence at the end of the abstract as a general conclusion.

3.      Page 3, Line 122, “our study applied the Tend-…”. “Tend” should be “Trend”.

4.      Please double-check equation 6 (var(S)). For example, please see equation 9 in Mianabadi et al. (2019), “Assessment of short- and long-term memory in trends of major climatic variables over Iran: 1966–2015”.

5.      Page 5, Section 3-2: Please provide appropriate references for this section: for definitions, table 1, indicators, equations, division of Di into three stages, …

6.      Page 6, Lines 180-183: Could you please clarify what is 7d and 3d, exacly? Also please provide a reference for equation 15 and the description of the components.

7.      Page 7, Line 218: “dRP, dRE, dRH is the amount of runoff change caused by climate change and human activities”. As there are 3 variables, you should provide 3 descriptions. So, I think it is better to say: “dRP and dRE are the amounts of runoff change caused by climate change (change in precipitation and evaporation, respectively) and dRH is the amount of runoff change caused by human activities”. Please, do the same for nP, nE, and nH.

 

8.      Table 5: how did you calculate dRH and nH? You did not mention it in the method section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After reading the revised version, I think the manuscript still need some more works.

First, in answering my question of fused approach of various methods used in this study which need to be thoroughly tested, the authors mentioned that 'we have referred to many previous studies, focusing on the comparison of the results of studies using the same methods in the same or similar areas'. If so, I am puzzled about the novelty of this study. Can the authors then mentioned more deeply about the novelty as compared to those mentioned 'previous studies'?

Second, the complex and irregular channel factor mentioned in this revised version has still not been discussed satisfactorily. I suggest to extend the discussion and explain more thoroughly how this factor has been represented in literature's modelling. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

I think this version is much improved from the previous. Minor correction needed: References [30 - 32] are for numerical work discussions. The authors should check again the referred literature to make sure the right papers have been used for all of them, in the right sequence.