Climate Change Impacts on Water Temperatures in Urban Lakes: Implications for the Growth of Blue Green Algae in Fairy Lake
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsas attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We are thankful for your comments and kind guidance to improve the paper. Below are our comments on your observations point by point:
Line-2 agreed and Blue-Green was replaced by Blue Green
Line-13 agreed and ‘susceptible’ was replace by ‘highly sensitive’
Line-15 agreed and ‘temperatures which’, was replaced by “temperatures, which”
Line-29 key words not enough
Answer: We believe that they are enough.
Line-35 agreed and replaced adverse from negative
Line-50 agreed and replaced concern and mitigative to concern. Mitigative
Line 59-60 agreed and replaced “Predicting these blooms' timing, magnitude, duration, and health impact is complex” from “Predicting the timing, magnitude, duration, and health impact of these blooms is complex”
Line 72 Agreed and replaced “The impact of climate change on the growth of Cyanobacteria is as yet unknown” from “climate change will impact the growth of Cyanobacteria is as yet unknown”
Line 82 Agreed and replaced “control is important” from “there is importance to control”
Line 84 Agreed and replaced “very important” from “of great importance”
Line 107 Not agreed so we did not change “estimating” from “estimate”.
Line 127 Agreed and replaced “process's” from “process”
Line 153 Not agreed so we did not change “explicitly treating horizontal” from “horizontal terms explicitly”.
Line 163 agreed and removed “the intersection of”
Line 174 Where is the lat and long on map
Answer: We revised Figure-1 and now it shows Lat and Long.
Line 219 Not agreed so we did not replace “Interested readers are encouraged to consult [42] for details of these vertical layers.” From “Interested readers are encouraged to consult [42] for details of these vertical layers.” Because they are same.
Line 242-243 agreed and replaced “A scaled eddy viscosity formulation with a constant value of 1E-10 was used for vertical dispersion. The model setup details are presented in Supplementary Text-2.” From “For vertical dispersion, a scaled eddy viscosity formulation with a constant value of 1E-10 was used. The details of the setup of model are presented in Supplementary Text-2.”
Line 280-283 not agreed and did not replace “The HD model was calibrated and validated using the following statistical parameters: Average standard deviation, correlation coefficient (R2), and Nash Sutcliffe correlation coefficient (NSE). Correlation Coefficients ranged between 0.75 to 0.77, and (NSE ranged between 0.4 to 0.5) demonstrating that the model is reasonably calibrated. The statistics of the simulated lake levels are summarized in Table 1.” From “MIKE-3 Fairy Lake HD model was calibrated and validated using the following statistical parameters: Average Standard Deviation, Correlation Coefficient (R2) and Nash Sutcliffe Correlation Coefficient (NSE). Correlation Coefficients ranged between 0.75 to 0.77 and (NSE ranged between 0.4 to 0.5 which demonstrate that the model is reasonably calibrated. The statistics of the simulated lake levels are summarized in Table 1.”
Line 324-325 Agreed and replaced “Figure 7 shows that observation of Cyanobacterial growth occurred when the surface water temperatures exceeded and remained above 20oC.” From “As apparent in Figure-7, the observation of Cyanobacterial growth occurred when the surface water temperatures exceeded and remained above 20oC.”
Line 341-342 not agreed and did not replace “In the present case, they were not updated for the modeling period as the output of the catchment model is not available.” From “Therefore, incoming water temperature series in the present case were not updated for the modeling period as the output of the catchment model is not available.”
Line 390-392 Agreed and replaced “This indicates the increased duration of the water temperature above a specific threshold at various depths, indicating that at the surface, the percentage increase is 39.7% due to climate change, resulting in enhanced outbreaks of Cyanobacteria blooms.” From “This provides an indication as to the increased duration of the water temperature above a specific threshold at various depths, indicating that at the surface, the percentage increase is 39.7% due to climate change, resulting in enhanced outbreaks of Cyanobacteria blooms.”
Line 417-418 Agreed and replaced “are” From “will be”.
Line 373 in Table 5 subtitles CC changed to RCP
Note that there were others changes also made as advised by other reviewers and are shown in redline edit of the transcript.
Thanks for your able guidance and Help
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript assessed the RCP 4.5 scenario for year 2050 in Fairy Lake by calibrating to existing (2022) conditions. This study provides a theoretical basis for the available growth time of cyanobacteria in response to climate change. Several minor revisions are suggested.
1. The purpose of the study was not very clear in Abstract section. The author can add more information about cyanobacterial blooms.
2. The authors could provide more information about the description of results, especially Section 5.
3. Table 6 and 7 are suggested to be modified according to Table 5.
4. Line 266. It can be placed in the first line.
5. The quality (resolution) of the figures need to be improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your comments and kind guidance to improve the paper. Below are our comments on your observations point by point:
1 The purpose of the study was not very clear in Abstract section. The author can add more information about cyanobacterial blooms.
We hesitate to add more information regarding cyanobacterial blooms in the abstract as it will make the paper longer.
- The authors could provide more information about the description of results, especially Section 5.
We believe that all the important information’s of the model results are presented.
- Tables 6 and 7 are suggested to be modified according to Table 5.
Thank you for your comment. We have reformatted Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7
- Line 266. It can be placed in the first line.
We are not sure what ‘it’ means
- The quality (resolution) of the figures need to be improved.
We have changed Figure- 1 and improved the quality of Figure-6 and Figure-7
Note that there were others changes also made as advised by other reviewers and are shown in the redline edit of the transcript.
Thanks for your able guidance and help
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIncreasing surface water temperatures due to ongoing climate change have and will have wide-ranging impacts in ecosystems, but also in the use of some industrial technologies. This paper focuses on the occurrence of a cyanobacterium that requires temperatures of 20 °C and above for its expansion. In the analyses, the authors use measured values from the experimental period in 2022 and estimates for 2050 according to RCP4.5 prepared by the hydrodynamic model MIKE-3. From this perspective, I consider the paper important and necessary.
However, the article contains a large number of unclear points and errors that need to be clarified or corrected. I consider the most serious to be the inconsistency between Tables 4 and 6 for WQ-3 and Tables 5 and 7 for WQ11.
A summary of my comments and suggestions is set out below.
l. 20 – Change the font at the end of line.
l. 48 – The abbreviation HABs is defined on the line 34 already.
l. 180 – There is not position of TMA and TMB defined on the whole article or on even one Fig. Maybe Temp A and Temp B (Fig. 4) is the moorings?
l. 183 - It is usual for climate and weather stations to provide coordinates in scientific papers.
l. 236 – Is there any reason to specify the measurement interval in seconds? After all, it is standard 1-hour data.
l. 242 – change the style or explain 1E-5 means 1 × 10-5 and 1E-10 means 1 × 10-10 ? In the supplement text the both format is used (1E-5 and 1e-5).
l. 248 – The SW1-WQ12 is not in the Fig. 3, there is SW2 WQ12 only. In fact, there is no explanation of difference between outlet x outfall used in the fig. 3.
l. 282 – cancel left bracket?
l. 266, 287, 300 – The heading format must be the same.
Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 – Using the same colour for the same variables would greatly facilitate the understanding of the results presented.
Fig. 7 – Add the line for Optimum Minimum temperature as in Fig. 6 is.
l. 299 – 1744 hours is not very clear, add 72 days or “since xth May 2022”.
l. 305 – The “zero” means “Surface” from the Tab. 2? Use the same label and add unit “m” (surface, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 m”).
Tab. 2 – Why are the values for 5 m not given? The same is valid for Tab. 3.
l. 325 – I propose to add Fig. 6 too.
l. 336 – I am not sure, but outfalls is not incoming creeks but out coming?
l. 347 – The right parenthesis is missing.
l. 349 – It says "more than 180 hours". On line 299 it says 1744 hours?
Tab. 4, 5, 6 and 7 – Change format according Tab. 1 and 2.
l. 364 – What does CW-3 mean? Is it WQ-3? The same for CW-11 on the line 379 and 381.
l. 383 – The values do not correspond to Tab. 4.
Tab. 6 – The values do not correspond to Tab. 4.
Tab. 7 – The values do not correspond to Tab. 5.
l. 410 – Add WQ-3 to “In the central basin”
l. 415 – Add WQ-11 to “in the northern area”
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3
Thank you for your valuable comments and kind guidance to improve the paper. Below are our comments on your observations point by point:
Concern
However, the article contains a large number of unclear points and errors that need to be clarified or corrected. I consider the most serious to be the inconsistency between Tables 4 and 6 for WQ-3 and Tables 5 and 7 for WQ11.
Answer
Answer: Table 4 is focused on the number of hours when the water temperature increased above 20oC for WQ-3 and Table 6 is focused on the number of continuous hours when temperature increased remained above 20oC (duration of water temperature above 20oC). Table 5 lists the number of hours when the water temperature increase above 20oC is for WQ-11 and Table 7 lists the number of continuous hours when the temperature increase is above 20oC (duration of water temperature above 20oC)
A summary of my comments and suggestions is set out below.
- 20 – Change the font at the end of line.
Answer: Thanks and we have changed it.
- 48 – The abbreviation HABs is defined on the line 34 already.
Answer: Thanks and we have deleted the repetition in Line-48.
- 180 – There is not position of TMA and TMB defined on the whole article or on even one Fig. Maybe Temp A and Temp B (Fig. 4) is the moorings?
Answer: Thanks for pointing that out. Figure-4 is revised showing TMA and TMB and also changed in line 186 by adding the word “Two Temperature Moorings (TMA and TMB) (shown in Figre-1) were installed in…
- 183 - It is usual for climate and weather stations to provide coordinates in scientific papers.
Answer: Since we received that data from CVC and have requested them to share that information with us. We will add that if we receive that in time (as soon as it is received).
- 236 – Is there any reason to specify the measurement interval in seconds? After all, it is standard 1-hour data.
Answer: MIKE-3 takes the time interval input in seconds. Our maximum and reporting time interval is 3600 seconds although it uses the time interval between 0.01 seconds to 3600 seconds.
- 242 – change the style or explain 1E-5 means 1 × 10-5and 1E-10 means 1 × 10-10? In the supplement text the both format is used (1E-5 and 1e-5).
Answer: Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed to 1×10-5 and 1×10-10 on line 242
- 248 – The SW1-WQ12 is not in the Fig. 3, there is SW2 WQ12 only. In fact, there is no explanation of difference between outlet x outfall used in the fig. 3.
Answer Thanks for pointing out our typographical Error. We have changed SW-1 on line 247 and is changed to SW-2.
- 282 – cancel left bracket?
Answer: Thanks. That has been changed.
- 266, 287, 300 – The heading format must be the same.
Answer: Thanks. We have made them the same
Fig. 7 – Add the line for Optimum Minimum temperature as in Fig. 6 is.
Answer: Thanks for pointing that out. We added that in Figure-7
- 299 – 1744 hours is not very clear, add 72 days or “since xth May 2022”.
Answer: We added 72 days in bracket also.
Tab. 2 – Why are the values for 5 m not given? The same is valid for Tab. 3.
Answer: As 5 m was the maximum depth, there is reflection from the bottom. It is also corrected in line 305 (did I make the change correctly?
- 325 – I propose to add Fig. 6 too.
Answer We are not sure what this request means
- 336 – I am not sure, but outfalls is not incoming creeks but out coming?
Answer: Outfalls are bringing water to lake
- 347 – The right parenthesis is missing.
Answer: Thanks. We have added that
- 349 – It says "more than 180 hours". On line 299 it says 1744 hours?
Answer: Thank you for point that out. The correction to 1744 hours has been added
- 364 – What does CW-3 mean? Is it WQ-3? The same for CW-11 on the line 379 and 381.
Answer: Thank you for identifying that. Line 365 is corrected to WQ-3, in Line 379 and 381 changed to WQ-11
- 383 – The values do not correspond to Tab. 4.
Tab. 6 – The values do not correspond to Tab. 4.
Tab. 7 – The values do not correspond to Tab. 5.
Answer: The intent here is to compare the duration of water temperature so those are mentioned here. Table-4 and Tables only show the number of hours at which temperature was above 20oC.
- 410 – Add WQ-3 to “In the central basin”
Answer: Thanks. We added that.
- 415 – Add WQ-11 to “in the northern area”
Answer: Thanks. We added that.
Note that there were others changes also made as advised by other reviewers and are shown in redline edit of the transcript.
Thanks for your able guidance and Help
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for all changes made.
Regarding line 325 (332 in version 2), I think the increase in Cyanobacteria observations occurs after the increase in surface temperature at both sites (WQ-3 and WQ-11) and thus in Figure 7 and Figure 6.
In truth, I am still not clear about the difference between the values in Table 4 (5) and 6 (7). But it is your responsibility and I accept it as it is. We'll see if readers react to it after publication.
