Application of the SWAT-EFDC Linkage Model for Assessing Water Quality Management in an Estuarine Reservoir Separated by Levees

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The publication assesses the water quality menagement plan by considering 8 scenarios using SWAT-EFDC linkage model for simulation of water quality changes of watershed and Ganwol estuarine reservoir in South Korea in relation to T-P. According to the Reviewer, the publication is utilitarian, not scientific. It solves the problem of improving the poor quality of water in the Ganwol reservoir using the above mentioned model. However, it has not scientific value. For this reason, it does not contain essential elements that would qualify it for publication in a publishing house of such renown as Applied Sciences. In addition, in the Reviewer's opinion, the title of the article is too long, the set of 23 literature items includes mainly Korean items, the conclusions are obvious and not new, the author of the SWAT-EFDC model was not given, and the advantages and disadvantages of the model and its limitations were not presented.

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive and positive comments on our study and this manuscript. Following your recommendation, the article was thoroughly revised, and your opinion has been reflected in this article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In the work, the authors performed research and analysis based on the developed SWAT EFDC model of diffuse pollution. The parameters for the model were properly selected. The interpretation and tools used are correct. In my opinion, the work lacked details about the type of substrate. Although it is stated what the use is in the whole catchment area, the water and ground conditions have not been discussed - it should be specified. Additionally, an answer can be sought as to whether the hydraulic properties of the embankments and their possible impact on water quality in the context of the type of built-in soil were investigated.

Yours sincerely

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive and positive comments on our study and this manuscript. Following your recommendation, the article was thoroughly revised, and your opinion has been reflected in this article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept in present form.

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive and positive comments on our study and this manuscript. Following your recommendation, the article was thoroughly revised, and your opinion has been reflected in this article.

Reviewer 4 Report

After reviewing the manuscript “Effect on water quality changes under soil remediation and water quality management scenarios using SWAT-EFDC linkage model; Case for reservoirs separated by levees”, the manuscript presents a well structure and correct presentation of results.

English language and style a little require editing.

I consider that the presented work requires some modifications before it is suitable for publication.

There is a lack of research by other authors on solving similar problems. Literature is very poor even though it dates from 2000 and beyond.

Was it not already described in "Simulating Arsenic Concentration Changes in Small Agricultural Reservoir Using EFDC-WASP Linkage Model"???

Are there any data, in addition to simulation data, to which to compare what is presented in this manuscript?

Perhaps it would be worth joining the future of algae research and what impact do they have? Maybe interfering with their environment will improve conditions?

The data would be more readable if there was a list of abbreviations that are used in the content (there is a lot).

I have the impression that on the basis of research published in the world on this type of problem, similar conclusions can be made, regardless of the location of the waters.

The title is too long, it is worth thinking about shortening it.

The conclusions are in part a rewrite of the previous content.

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive and positive comments on our study and this manuscript. Following your recommendation, the article was thoroughly revised, and your opinion has been reflected in this article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors of the publication took into account the comments submitted by the Reviewers in the new version of the article. In this situation, I believe the article may be published in present form in Applied Sciences.

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for answering.
The results were presented a little better.