Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Hydrological Regime of Rivers in the Periglacial Zone of the East European Plain in the Late MIS 2

Quaternary 2024, 7(3), 32; https://doi.org/10.3390/quat7030032 (registering DOI)

by Aleksey Sidorchuk^1,*

, Andrei Panin²

and Olga Borisova²

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2:

Fernando Villela

Reviewer 3:

Xiangjiang Yu

Quaternary 2024, 7(3), 32; https://doi.org/10.3390/quat7030032 (registering DOI)

Submission received: 11 March 2024 / Revised: 20 June 2024 / Accepted: 17 July 2024 / Published: 19 July 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have carefully and thoroughly read your article. It is a valuable synthetic compilation of environmental data of the great rivers of Eastern Europe. Therefore, it is most deserving of publication. However, the article also has some shortcomings that need to be improved. I also have some doubts about the interpretation and discussion sections, which I set out below. More detailed comments are contained in the comments contained in the PDF attached to the review.

Abstract

In the aforementioned first task we have the word 'periglacial' repeated several times. This sentence should be reworded. Besides, part of the analysed area is already outside the range of continuous permafrost. The specification in the aforementioned second sentence of the type of plaeohydraulic parameters/relationships is redundant. More attention should be paid to the results and their interpretation and conclusions. It should briefly refer the scientific problem(s), aims of studies, a list of the main methods and results. At this stage the abstract is not well constructed and should be rewritten

Introduction

In the aforementioned chapter, you have paid a lot of attention to methodological issues. On the other hand, you have hardly pointed to the results of similar studies from Europe, the Northern Hemisphere factor. This also applies to stratigraphic issues. It would be good to know whether the development period in the river systems presented in the article coincided or whether there were differences with the rest of Europe. The research objectives of the article should be more clearly highlighted as was done at the beginning of the chapter Discussion

Materials and Methods

This chapter needs to be separated into 2 chapters and fundamentally restructured. Details are included in the PDF comments. In the aforementioned chapter we can learn little about the study materials and nothing about the methods. We have, however, a physiographic description and a description of environmental conditions in the Late Glacial. This is not the place for such considerations.

Methods

Finally, this chapter details the measurements taken and their calculations. Which makes the poor design of the previous chapter all the more apparent.

Results

The resultant chapter lacks comparative charts for each catchment area. It would also be useful to have a summary showing the differences for intermediate and late-glacial rivers. This could be done for different types of estimations. The lack of such figures causes the reader to get lost in these considerations at some point. I suggest that the results of radiocarbon dating from the analysed palaeomanders be collected in aggregate form to show what the time span of their functioning was in real terms. If the number of dates is statistically sufficient, it can also be checked whether there is a convergence of results in the basins of the three rivers analysed, or some clear differences.

Discussion

The discussion was generally well structured. The authors have given a lot of attention to methodological issues, which I think is correct. this is not, however, referred to in the abstract, which is poorly structured and needs to be rewritten.

The discussion should pay a little more attention to the reference to recent studies, examples of which are indicated in the commentary attached to the PDF.

Conclusions

The beginning of this chapter contains things that should not be there. Details are in the comments to the text. To improve the readability of this important chapter, I propose to clearly list the authors' most important achievements.

Figures

Figure 1. I am not sure that the representation of modern vegetation zones adds much to the understanding of the text. In the aforementioned town I would rather expect a figure showing the location of the palaeochannels from Figure 3.

Figure 2 is just a conglomeration of somewhat randomly selected photographs without any morphometric analysis. I believe that such areas should instead be shown, where fossil and modern meanders are clearly visible next to each other and their most important parameters should be presented so that the reader can see and understand the significant difference between modern and Late Glacial rivers.

Figure 4 This should be juxtaposed on this figure with the modern zones in Figure 1. This would facilitate comparisons.

Best regards,

Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Authors,

I have carefully and thoroughly read your article. It is a valuable synthetic compilation of environmental data of the great rivers of Eastern Europe. Therefore, it is most deserving of publication.

Thank you very much

However, the article also has some shortcomings that need to be improved. I also have some doubts about the interpretation and discussion sections, which I set out below.

We shall do our best to improve the paper

More detailed comments are contained in the comments contained in the PDF attached to the review.

We placed the comments from the PDF to the current file. All the changes in the text according the comments of Rev1 are marked in green. Our answers in this file are in bold.

Abstract

The abstract was rewritten according the comments of the Rev1.

At the end of the Pleniglacial – first half of the Late Glacial, approximately between 18-13 ka BP, rivers of the central and southern parts of the East European Plain had channels up to 10 times as large as the present day channels of the same rivers. These ancient channels called large meandering palaeochannels are widespread in river floodplains and low terraces. Hydrological regime of these large rivers is of great interest in terms of palaeoclimatology of the late MIS 2. In this study we aimed at quantitative estimation of maximum flood discharges of rivers in the Dnepr, Don and Volga basins in the late MIS 2. To approach it, we used massive measurements of the morphometric characteristics of large palaeochannels on topographic maps and remote sensing data – palaeochannel width, meander wavelength and their relationships with river flow parameters. The runoff depth of the maximum flood, which corresponds to the maximum depth of daily snow thaw during the snowmelt period, was obtained for unit basins with an area of <1000 km². The mean value for the southern megaslope of the East European Plain was 44.2 mm/day (six fold the modern value), with 46 mm/day for the Volga River (5.5 times), 45 mm/day (6.3 times) for the Don River and 39 mm/day (8 times the modern value) for the Dnepr River basins. In general, the Dnepr basin was drier than the Don and Volga basins, which corresponds well to the modern distribution of humidity. At the same time, the westernmost part of the Dnepr River basin was relatively wetter in the past, and there the decrease of humidity from the past to the modern situation was greater than in the eastern and central regions. The obtained results contradict the prevailing ideas, based mainly on climatic modeling and palynological data, that the climate of Europe was cold and dry during MIS 2. The reason is that palaeoclimatic reconstructions were made predominantly for the LGM epoch (20-23 ka BP) as the coldest time of MIS 2. On the East European Plain, the interval 18–13 ka BP is rather poorly studied. Our results of paleoclimatological and palaeohydrological reconstructions showed that the Late Pleniglacial – first half of the Late Glacial were characterized by an dramatic increase in precipitation and river discharge relative to the present-day.

Line 15 the mean value of what? Snow thawing? It's not clear

The Abstract is re-written.

Line 19This sentence has no sens in the abstract. It should briefly refer the scientific problem(s), aims of studies, a list of the main methods and results. At this stage the abstract is not well constructed and should be rewritten

The Abstract is re-written.

Introduction

The problem raised by the reviewer was addressed in a special paper about the large meanders on the rivers in Europe, their morphology, age and origin (Vandenberghe, J.; Sidorchuk, A. Large palaeomeanders in Europe: Distribution, formation process, age, environments and significance.2019), which we sited in Introduction. We cannot add anything important to that review.

The research objectives of the article should be more clearly highlighted as was done at the beginning of the chapter Discussion

The objectives were changed to: This article examines the methodological and paleoclimatic problems, which arise due to existence of large meandering rivers at the end of MIS 2 (approximately 18-14 ka BP). The maximum flood discharges of the ancient rivers that drained the southern megaslope of the East European Plain (the basins of the Volga, Don and Dnepr Rivers) were calculated. The improved methodology of the reconstruction [10] was used, as well as large number of new paleochannel fragments, obtained with remote sensing.

Line 27 give tha space

Was done

Materials and Methods

It was done.

Line 43 the next chapter has the same name 'Methods' I suggest to call the entire chapet 'Study area'

Line 44 This subchapter has nothing in common with 'Materials and methods' and should be separated into a chapter 'Study area'

Section Materials and Methods was renamed into Study area

Line 97 for what period is this extent? Give an information - Late Pleniglacial, Late Glacial

Was changed to: sea coastlines during the Late Pleniglacial

Methods

Finally, this chapter details the measurements taken and their calculations. Which makes the poor design of the previous chapter all the more apparent.

Agreed, the previous section was renamed

Results

Following reviewer’s suggestions, tables 2 and 3 with the data comparisons were included, and the text was transformed accordingly.

I suggest that the results of radiocarbon dating from the analysed palaeomanders be collected in aggregate form to show what the time span of their functioning was in real terms. If the number of dates is statistically sufficient, it can also be checked whether there is a convergence of results in the basins of the three rivers analysed, or some clear differences.

To meet the reviewer's suggestions, we added the following text to the end of section 2.2 and additional references:

In [Panin and Matlakhova, 2015], based on an analysis of radiocarbon dates, the time of formation of large palaeochannels in the Dnepr, Don, and Volga basins was attributed to the interval 18-13 ka BP. Later, a large array of radiocarbon dates was obtained for the large palaeochannels of rivers in the Volga basin, which allowed to estimate the time of their formation more precisely - from 17.3 to 13.8 ka BP [Gelfan et al., 2024]. No differences in the time of formation of large palaeochannels in different parts of the Volga basin were found.

Line 229 largest

Was improved

Line 301 what kind of software did you use for such calculations? It should be described in the methods

The software we used (ArcGIS 10.3) was mentioned both in the Methods and in this sentence.

Line 315 Such a varying temporal range of measurements makes these values difficult to compare. Please consider that measurements from 1881 onwards are still the tip of the Little Ice Age. Think through the issue of capturing the same measurement years, even at the cost of a smaller time span

It is rather difficult to use the same period, as we need the time span before construction of large reservoirs, which was different in different basins. The hydrological data from the end of 19^th c. to the mid 20^th c. are statisticaly stable, as was stated in section 2.3, so the Little Ice Age did not affect these data. Information for the Don and Dnepr basins cover similar periods. We changed the gauging station for the Volga River basin to Verkhneye Lebyazhye station to have a similar period also.

Discussion

The abstract was rewritten

The discussion should pay a little more attention to the reference to recent studies, examples of which are indicated in the commentary attached to the PDF.

Line 440 Do you therefore believe that the increase in flow is sufficiently compensated for by adequate channel width? Do you have any studies/publications to support this thesis?

This was shown in the paper Sidorchuk, A. The large rivers of the past in West Siberia: Unknown hydrological regimen. Water 2023, 15, 258. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15020258, the citation was added to the text

Line 455 This asumption is too far. Several interesting papers have recently been published on the Late Glacial from eastern Europe that should be included in this discussion, for instance:

Luoto, T.P., Kotrys, B., Płóciennik, M., 2019. East European chironomid-based calibration model for past summer temperature reconstructions. Climate Research 77, 63–76. DOI:10.3354/cr01543.
Płóciennik, M., Mroczkowska, A., Pawłowski, D., Kruk, A., Wieckowska-Lüth, M., Kurzawska, A., Rzodkiewicz, M., Okupny, D., Szma´nda, J., Mazurkevich, A., Dolbunova, E., Luoto, T.P., Kotrys, B., Nazarova, L., Syrykh, L., Krąpiec, M., Kittel, P., 2022. Summer temperature drives the lake ecosystem during the late weichselian and Holocene in eastern Europe: a case study from western Russia. Catena 214. 106206. DOI: 10.1016/j.catena.2022.106206
Stančikaitė, M., Zernitskaya, V., Kluczyńska, G., Valūnas, D., Gedminienė, L., Uogintas, D., Skuratovič, Ž., Vlasov, B., Gastevičienė, N., Ežerinskis, Ž., Šapolaitė, J., Šeirienė, V., 2022. The lateglacial and early holocene vegetation dynamics: New multi-proxy data from the central Belarus. Quat. Int. 630, 121–136. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2021.05.004.

According to your suggestion, we added two of these papers to the references, although they are devoted primarily to the reconstructions of summer temperatures for the time interval in question [Luoto et al., 2019, Płóciennik et al., 2022], but the paper by Stančikaitė et al., 2022 discuss much younger interval.

The text is changed accordingly:

While quite a lot of research is devoted to temperature changes (mainly in the warm season) during this period [Luoto et al., 2019, Płóciennik et al., 2022], reconstructions of precipitation for this period are still rare, so additional research is required. Therefore, with regard to estimates of atmospheric precipitation, we use our own reconstructions for the study area with the use of the paleofloristic method [Borisova, 2021].

Conclusions

Line 493 This is a repetition of information from earlier chapters, not conclusions. This should be removed from her

Was removed

Line 495 I think you should not list the morphometric methods in this chapter. I expect rather brief list of obtained results or a peroposal of some method modification, what might be valuable for readers.

We believe that the method we applied must have their place in the conclusion (as well as in the abstract), as we used the modification of the method.

The sentence now is:

As a development of our previous purely empirical method of calculating mean annual discharge of the past, in this paper we calculated the mean maximum discharges using three basic morphometric relationships: 1) between the meander wavelength L and the bankfull channel width W; 2) between the maximum discharge with the channel width; 3) between maximum discharges and drainage areas.

Figures

Figure 1 illustrates the modern natural setting of the area (Section 2.1) and is subsequently used for comparisons with the periglacial environment (Section 2.2), so we find it useful.

Images have been replaced to better show the differences between old and modern channels in the three basins studied. Morphometric characteristics have been added to the figure caption.

Figure 4 This should be juxtaposed on this figure with the modern zones in Figure 1. This would facilitate comparisons.

For this reason, we shall not remove Figure 1. We added the following comparison to section 2.2:

Compared to the modern vegetation zones on the East European Plain (Figure 1), periglacial vegetation was much more homogeneous throughout this vast territory, which allowed Velichko [16] to introduce the concept of periglacial hyperzone, which included a complex of tundra, steppe and to a lesser extent open forest communities in conditions of widespread permafrost. Such vegetation in modern (interglacial) conditions has no direct and complete analogues on the East European Plain. The closest contemporary analogues of such complex vegetation are found in the intermountain depressions of the Altai and Sayan Mountains under continental climatic conditions [16].

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Sincerely yours,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General

The manuscript deals with the reconstruction of the hydrological regime of three important river systems of the Southern Megaslope of the East European Plain: the Volga, Don and Dnepr Rivers. Starting from the beginning that past and current regimes can be compared, three criteria were used based on hydraulic geometry river relationships: meander wavelength and channel width at the bankfull discharge, maximum discharge and channel width and (possible) maximum discharges and drainage areas. The authors verified it was also necessary, looking to past meander wavelengths and channel widths, regard 364 fragments of large paleochannels to compare hydraulic characteristics of pasta and existing channels. By doing that, it was possible to point out that the mean value for the entire southern megaslope of the East European Plain was about six times the modern value, being to the Volga River basin 5.5 times the modern value, for the Don River basin 6.3 times the modern value and for the Dnepr River basin 8 times the modern value.

The article presents robust data, although on a small scale, with established methodology within the field of fluvial geomorphology focused on periglacial environments and equally innovations regarding methodological proposals. In particular, it can be emphasized the quantitative paleohydrological calculation methods of Dury's works based on the relationships between the bankfull discharge and the meander wavelength, mainly because meander wavelengths in natural rivers vary enormously between incised meanders and free ones, which raises other questions and suggestions along the paper envolving methodological approaches. Therefore, I believe that the manuscript is an important methodological contribution and also an important reconstruction focused on the paleoenvironment according to Pleistocene and Holocene river systems data associated with this region of the East European Plain.

Some observations can be listed in order to make the article better understandable for Quaternary readers:

Formatting

- Figure 1: Highlight the main drainages in light blue; highlight the seas in darker blue; highlight the continental part outside the highlighted area in light gray; enter coordinates; insert thematic and systematic items in the legend;

- Figure 2: Emphasize scale and northern reference; point out toponymies; specifically point out some fragments in the three images;

- Figure 3: Decrease the thickness of 1 and 8; indicate 4, 5 and 6 in colors; indicate 7 and 8 in brown or orange; include arrow in the caption; highlight the seas in darker blue; highlight the continental part outside the highlighted area in light gray; enter coordinates;

- Figure 4: insert black, blue lines and arrows in the legend; 10 lies just south of the Dnepr river basin? Highlight the seas in darker blue; highlight the continental part outside the highlighted area in light gray; enter coordinates; It is recommended to check colors in https://colorbrewer2.org/#type=sequential&scheme=BuGn&n=3

- Figures 6 to 9: Highlight the main drainages in light blue; highlight the seas in darker blue; highlight the continental part outside the highlighted area in light gray; enter coordinates; insert thematic and systematic items in the legend;

- For the sake of toponymy and even understanding the orographic influence, it is recommended to indicate massifs and other toponymies (e.g. Ural Mountains) in an SRTM image of the study area with the river basin watersheds.

Presentation of Concepts and Results

- Line 73: specifically define what are well-preserved fragments of large paleochannels. Do they correspond only to remnants of abandoned meanders or do they include features such as terraces and backswamps?

- In Equations 1 to 9, for better understanding, it is recommended that the designations of each variable would be noted, e.g. where L is .... Kw is ...... W is ........ and so on;

- Line 358: Change “the modern situation there was greater than in the eastern and central regions” to “the modern situation was greater than in the eastern and central regions”;

- Line 406: Change “error in paleo-discharge estimates” to “error in paleo-discharge estimations”;

- Line 445: A table with palynological information could help to elucidate the notes that the authors associate with their own results;

- Figure 10: a suggestion would be to insert an overview indication of the marine isotopic stages to compare with the characteristics highlighted.

Discussion

- Line 173: considering Actualism and its expression in Equation 3, just highlight with reservations the fact that the study area has been the subject of human cultivation and occupation for centuries, which can obliterate/modify evidence used in the study;

- Considering the premise that the contribution areas of the basins are equal in the past and current hydrological regimes, please emphasize that the melting conditions of snow masses running off to river channels increased their incision and width only, i.e there were variable changing conditions of magnitude and frequency, but there were no change in the variables

- Line 324: it is not completely understood how it is possible to estimate the regional exponent and coefficient in Equation 7 for the Don River basin, i.e., what is the reason for the presented specific values?

- Line 401: there is a very pertinent discussion in this paragraph, since it indicates how we must avoid exaggerations in previous discharge calculations compared to recent regimes;

- Please emphasize whether the use of the channel width data of incised rivers positively correlates with the maximum flood runoff depth;

- Question: if in the basin downstream area of large rivers the incision decreases but the width increases, making the w/d ratio 0<X<1, what is the consequent situation regarding past and present maximum flood runoff depths?

Yours sincerely,

Reviewer

Author Response

Thank you for your opinion. All the changes in the text according to the comments of Rev2 are marked in dark red. Our answers in this file are in bold.

Some observations can be listed in order to make the article better understandable for Quaternary readers:

Formatting

We corrected all figures following your suggestions and changed figure captions accordingly.

Done

- Figure 2: Emphasize scale and northern reference; point out toponymies; specifically point out some fragments in the three images;

Scale and northern reference are improved. Other changes are mentioned in the figure caption.

The figure is largely improved following your suggestions.

The figure is improved according to your suggestions.

Done

Since the East European Plain has a relatively small range of elevations within the three river basins under discussion, we have considered it sufficient to show the position of the main uplands that are mentioned in the text and serve as watersheds between these basins and their main parts.

Presentation of Concepts and Results

An explanation was added to the text:

“Mostly, they are abandoned large ox-bows on the floodplains and first terraces (see examples in Figure 2). Much more numerous are less distinct remnants, such as large natural levees, the cirques of floodplain edges, bends of the valley bottom inherited from the large meanders, that were not (if possible) used in this study.”

- In Equations 1 to 9, for better understanding, it is recommended that the designations of each variable would be noted, e.g. where L is .... Kw is ...... W is ........ and so on;

All designations for each variable were written before the equations so that the descriptions were not interrupted.

- Line 358: Change “the modern situation there was greater than in the eastern and central regions” to “the modern situation was greater than in the eastern and central regions”;

Was changed

- Line 406: Change “error in paleo-discharge estimates” to “error in paleo-discharge estimations”;

Was changed

- Line 445: A table with palynological information could help to elucidate the notes that the authors associate with their own results;

Palynological information was published by the authors of the reconstructions of the LGM climate – see reference numbers 36-39 in the old text.

- Figure 10: a suggestion would be to insert an overview indication of the marine isotopic stages to compare with the characteristics highlighted.

MIS 2 is mentioned in figure caption alongside the time span of the reconstruction.

Discussion

To clarify the point, the following sentence was added to 3.1 in Methods section:

It is necessary to exclude from the analysis river basins with a hydrological regime significantly modified by human activity (i.e., reservoirs and ponds and large water intakes).

We emphasize this point for modern rivers in sections 2.3 (Therefore, we further use hydrological data about maximum discharges, formed mostly by water from thawing snow, collected up to and including the 1970s) and for ancient rivers in section 4.2.2 (As it follows from the paleolandscapes at these river basins, these discharges were formed during the spring thawing of the snow), and in Discussion.

The sentence was deleted

- Line 401: there is a very pertinent discussion in this paragraph, since it indicates how we must avoid exaggerations in previous discharge calculations compared to recent regimes;

- Please emphasize whether the use of the channel width data of incised rivers positively correlates with the maximum flood runoff depth;

Equation 4 showing this relationship was derived for incised rivers in the Don River basin – see Sections 4.1 and 4.2

If for the large rivers depth/width ratio (beta) decreases down the river (i.e. the depth decreases but the width increases) and flow velocity U is nearly constant, then in the Equation 11 the exponent X must be negative both for the modern and ancient large rivers, this was added to the lines 440-442 of the old text.

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Sincerely yours,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editors and authors,

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Hydrological regime of rivers in the periglacial zone of the East European Plain”. Generally speaking, this manuscript is well written and makes a great contribution to the landscape of the periglacial zone of the East 3 European Plain. In this way, I feel that this manuscript can be accept after minor revision. The followings are the special comments.

First, I suggest that the authors add a map showing the extent of ice cap during the ice age and further discussion the rivers in the study area and its relationship with the ice cap in the Europe.

Second, recent researchers show that the scale of river morphology on the Mars is much larger than that on the Earth, and they think the river morphology is also caused by large-scale flood. The authors can compare their results.

Third, I would like to see the authors reconstruct the river pattern of the study area during the last glacial period.

Line 280 Please give more explanation on this expression. When do we use Equation (7) and when do you use Equation (9)?

Line 365-367 Please rewrite this sentence. Not clear.

Figure 9 What does “R” mean in the figure? Please explain it in the figure caption.

Xiangjiang Yu

Professor of Geology,

Jilin University

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Line 27 Please add the space between “15” and “times”

Line 99 Change “At” to “During”

Line 384 Change “very” to “extremely”

Line 390 Change “There are two problems for the discussion: the methodological and paleoclimatic.” to “The methodology and paleoclimate are two key issue needing further clarification in the revised in the discussion.”

Author Response

Thank you very much for your opinion. All the changes in the text according to your comments are marked in blue.

The followings are the special comments.

First, I suggest that the authors add a map showing the extent of ice cap during the ice age

We added the southern boundary of the ice sheet at the LGM to Figure 4. Its boundary at the Pomeranian and Luga stages were already shown in the Figure.

and further discussion the rivers in the study area and its relationship with the ice cap in the Europe.

We added the following text:

During the LGM, the Scandinavian ice sheet reached the headwaters of the Dnieper and Volga rivers. At the beginning of deglaciation, melt water flowed down these rivers into the Black and Caspian seas.

In our research we used the empirical relationships of the modern hydrological processes for the rivers of the past with the basins situated in similar landscapes. This similarity of the landscapes is very important for our reconstructions. We believe that an attempt to find the ancient landscapes on the Mars similar to those on the Earth is a very difficult task. May be later…?

Third, I would like to see the authors reconstruct the river pattern of the study area during the last glacial period.

We added the following text:

The structure of the MIS 4 and MIS 2 rivers before the onset of deglaciation is still poorly studied due to the rarity of definite morphological traces of their channels. We can only assume that these rivers were shallow and braided.

Line 280 Please give more explanation on this expression. When do we use Equation (7) and when do you use Equation (9)?

We added an explanation to Line 280: Equation 7 for calculating maximum discharge and Equation 8 for calculating maximum daily runoff depth for the modern rivers are different for small and large catchments. In the new text, the index of Equation 9 was changed to 8.

Line 365-367 Please rewrite this sentence. Not clear.

The sentence was transformed: Maximum discharges in the lowermost parts of the ancient rivers can be estimated either directly with Equation 4 from the paleochannel width, or indirectly with Equation 7 from the basin area with known coefficient a₁ and exponent b₁. The latter way was used here (see Table 3), since the remnants of large paleomeanders are not characteristic for the lower reaches of the rivers.

Figure 9 What does “R” mean in the figure? Please explain it in the figure caption.

The index was added to the figure caption

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Line 27 Please add the space between “15” and “times”

Line 99 Change “At” to “During”

Line 384 Change “very” to “extremely”

All these changes were made.

Dear Professor Xiangjiang Yu, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Sincerely yours,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Article Menu

Hydrological Regime of Rivers in the Periglacial Zone of the East European Plain in the Late MIS 2

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI