Impact of Three Gorges Reservoir Operation on Water Level at Jiujiang Station and Poyang Lake in the Yangtze River
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In this study, the Mann-Kendall method was used to test the trend of water level variation, and the impacts of riverbed incision and inflow runoff changes on the water level at JJS were macroscopically analyzed using the observed data from 1981 to 2021. Furthermore, the implications of the outflow discharge of Three Gorges Reservoir (TGR) and the interval basin inflow discharge on the water level at JJS were simulated using the Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) neural network model and analyzed the partial dependence plot.
1. The relationship between the flow discharge and water level at JJS in 2023 has been adapted to accommodate the changing discharge. However, the relationship will change due to topographic changes. How can the estimated discharge be made sure to be correct for each year? In addition, is the vertical axis in Figure 2 water level or depth?
2. Why only analyze the data between Sept. and Mar.?
3. Why adapt monthly data to analyze, not use daily or seasonal data?
4. The parameter “k” in 𝑈𝐵𝑘 and 𝑈𝐹𝑘 in Figure 4 should be subscripted.
5. Please consistently write “Mann Kendall“ or “Mann-Kendall“ in the article.
6. How to estimate the flow volume (discharge?) at JJS in Figure 7?
7. What is the “Water level impactl (m)” in Figure 8?
8. What is the purpose of using LSTM in this study?
9. What is the meaning of x-axial in Figure 9?
10. Is the data in Table 4 discharge or volume?
11. What are the water level and volume values in Figure 7? How do you connect the H1 to H4 water level and riverbed incision values on Page 10? In addition, how to measure and get the value of riverbed incision?
12. What is the “RMSE “in Table 6, and please define the performance meanings of NSE, MAE, and RMSE.
13. The study only discusses the water level at Jiujiang Station due to Three Gorges Reservoir operation. It does not mention the influence of water level on Poyang Lake, and the topic suggests revising.
Author Response
Please find attached the reply for the Reviewer 1 report.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is interesting, but it is not very coherent. Some points are rather obscure. To facilitate the readers, I would advise the authors to use shorter periods. They should also keep in mind that they address an international audience, which is probably not very familiar with the details of the geography of China.
An indicative list of minor corrections (or obscure points) follows:
p.1 (Abstract): The phrase: “The variation of water level at Jiujiang Station (JJS) will change the evolution relationship” is not clear to me.
p.1 (Abstract): is great important > is of great importance
p.1 (Abstract and main text): “interval basin” is not an established term, as far as I know. Please explain it the first time you use it in the main text.
p. 1: prolong low water level period > prolonged low water level period
p. 3: The aims of this study are quantitatively analyzed … and provided > The aims of this study are to quantitatively analyze … and to provide
p. 3: there are five rivers, namely …, flow into > there are five rivers, namely …, flowing into
p. 5: “nor inferred by few abnormal values” Do you mean: nor affected by few abnormal values ?
p. 5: is greater than 0 > is larger than 0
p. 6: and the combination of feature vector 𝑧𝑠 and 𝑧𝑐 compose the total feature space 𝑧. > and the combination of feature vectors 𝑧𝑠 and 𝑧𝑐 composes the total feature space 𝑧.
p. 8: curve surpassed the critical line > curve fell below the critical line
p. 8: that the upper Yangtze River basin was occurred dry years > that dry years occurred in the upper Yangtze River basin
p. 9: Please rephrase: “although the successively operation of upstream reservoirs in the upper Yangtze River”
p. 13: something is missing in: “The partial dependence plots of the TGR outflow discharge, TGR-JJS interval basin inflow and the water level at JJS in September and October, and from December to March of the following year after the TGR operation in 2003.”
p. 14: The mainly conclusions were summarized as follow: > The main conclusions are the following:
Comments on the Quality of English Language
From my previous comments, it follows that the quality of English can be improved.
Author Response
Please find attached the reply for the Reviewer 2 report.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- It seems that the data in Figures 2, 9, 11, and 12 are m3/s, and the data in Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are monthly. How do you connect or explain this time variation or uncertainty?
No.
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has been improved, and it can be accepted. There is one necessary correction in page 3, namely: “flow discharge data series of Yichang Station from 1981 to 2002 are regulated by the TGR”, should read: “flow discharge data series of Yichang Station from 1981 to 2002 are not regulated by the TGR”.
Small additional corrections could be made, such as:
p. 1: of great important > of great importance
p. 4: for testing the trend of hydrological variable > for testing the trend of hydrological variables
p. 11: neural network model is used to simulated > neural network model is used to simulate
p. 15: The mainly conclusions > The main conclusions
There is no reason, though, to delay the acceptance procedure because of them.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThey are included in the suggestions for authors
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
