Evolution of Depositional Environments in Response to the Holocene Sea-Level Change in the Lower Delta Plain of Nakdong River Delta, Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

see below

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments from Reviewer #1

 

Answer

We would like to thank the reviewers for reading and reviewing the paper thoroughly. We made revisions in accordance with most suggestions made by the reviewers. Once again, we would like to thank the reviewers for their feedback.

 

Reviewer #1:

Line 45: delta has become a most

Answers: We agree with your comment, revised from ‘delta has become a most’ to ‘the deltas have become the most’

Line 49: and

Answers: We agree with your comment, revised from ‘and’ to ‘which are’

Line 77: measure dating

Answers: We agree with your comment, revised from ‘measure dating’ to ‘the age of sediment’

Line 157, 162, 176, 184, 214: charcoal is a manmade product, the samples probably contained wood

Answers: All words in the text have been corrected, revised from ‘charcoal’ to ‘wood fragments’

Line 295: land sediment better riverine sediment or terrestrial sediment

Answers: I have revised the previous wording to terrestrial and riverine sediment (Line 293, 295, 297)

Line 295-297: the sentence is not correct: the fine sediments could be also contributed by the river

Answers: We agree with your comment, revised sentence to ‘Therefore, the relatively coarse-grained riverine sediments did not reach the ND-3 drilling site, and only the relatively fine-grained clay sediments suspending around the ND-3 drilling site were deposited at the ND-3 drilling site.’

Line 301: delta massive

Answers: Massive describes the sediment structure of the Unit D. So, it seems right not to include delta

Line 314: a deposition by tides

Answers: We agree with your comment, revised from ‘bottom flow near a sea bed’ to ‘a deposition by tides’

Line 343: is there any information how deep the glacial river was eroded in the shelf and coastal land

Answers: Unfortunately, there is no sufficient data that eroded depth information of the glacial river.

Line 354: dating

Answers: We agree with your comment, revised from ‘dating’ to ‘age’

Line 354-355: and had different elevations to the former sea level

Answers: We agree with your comment, added that sentence.

Line 374: Please plot the dated sediments in the left part of Fig 5 into the sea level curve, a comparison of the different depositional environments would be possible

Answers: we have fully considered your suggestions, but we think that it is difficult to draw a sea-level curve into the figure 6 with the age data we have.

Line 383: topography

Answers: We agree with your comment, revised from ‘topography’ to ‘topographic position’

Line 387-388: or the subaerially exposed surfaces were eroded during the transgression

Answers: The sentence in the manuscript do not explain the period of transgressive stage, but the period of lowstand stage. Therefore, it is better not to add the sentence you suggested.

Line 450: identified in

Answers: We agree with your comment, revised from ‘divided from’ to ‘identified in’

Line 458: the sentence as no meaning (because the ND-2 and ND-3 core sediments were not deposited at the same time)

Answers: We agree with your comment, deleted that sentence.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents a great quality study on evolution of delta plain on the basis of field and literature studies. Research area and methodology are clearly and widely described and requires only a few additions. 

However, I should emphasise the subject of the manuscript fits better to Geosciences than Applied Sciences journal. Authors should consider whether this is a more appriopriate place to publish this work.

Other minor observations:

L84: please add information on average/maximum annual discharge of the river

L199: figurę description should not be divided between two pages.

L226, L 416, L449: move to next page.

 

 

Author Response

Comments from Reviewer #2

The manuscript presents a great quality study on evolution of delta plain on the basis of field and literature studies. Research area and methodology are clearly and widely described and requires only a few additions. 

However, I should emphasise the subject of the manuscript fits better to Geosciences than Applied Sciences journal. Authors should consider whether this is a more appriopriate place to publish this work.

Answer

We would like to thank the reviewers for reading and reviewing the paper thoroughly. We made revisions in in accordance with most suggestions made by the reviewers. I also considered the geoscience journals you suggested, but recently applied sciences also introduced a lot of Quaternary research. Once again, we would like to thank the reviewers for their feedback.

 

Other minor observations:

L84: please add information on average/maximum annual discharge of the river

Answer: We agree with your comment, added annual freshwater discharge (line 84)

L199: figurę description should not be divided between two pages.

Answer: We agree with your comment, so it was corrected.

L226, L 416, L449: move to next page.

Answer: We agree with your comment, and I’ll check it out in the final edit.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx