Quantifying Small-Scale Hyporheic Streamlines and Resident Time under Gravel-Sand Streambed Using a Coupled HEC-RAS and MIN3P Model
, Munshi Md. Shafwat Yazdan 2,*, Md Tanvir Ahad 3, Wisdom Akatu 1, Raaghul Kumar 2 and Ashiqur Rahman 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript can be considered for publication after minor revisions. First, the Authors should discuss their results considering the literature on hyporheic flows. Second, I advise the Authors to better highlight the novelty of their study within the current literature.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This survey investigates the effect of Gravel-Sand Streambed on Hyporheic Streamlines and Resident Time. This study can be interesting for the potential readers, in terms of water flow path distribution and transportation of the contaminations. However, there are some points in the manuscript that need be changed before it is recognized as a scientific publication. As a result, I recommend that the manuscript would be acceptable after a major revision. Please find following some comments and recommendations for improvement.
(1) In the introduction part, you have to review previous works in this field and add some literatures as well as references to represent the background of the work.
(2) The equations need references in the Formulation of GW-SW Exchange part. Please refer them properly to the available publications.
(3) Please explain figure 3 in the manuscript and remove the tag “b)” from the figure. In case you adapt or copy this figure from another paper, please be sure to have a permission for it.
(4) Please revise the section numbering. Model parameterization (line 248) doesn’t have section number where section (2.3 line 404) comes after section 2.4 (line 274).
(5) Please provide the appendix section which was mentioned in the line 272.
(6) Figure 8 needs figure title, also, improve the quality of the figure 9.
(7) Part 3.1 “Hydraulic Head Distribution” was repeated twice (line 475 and 496) in the manuscript, remove one of them.
(8) Please adjust the rectangular block on the figures. It is blocking the information in some cases, for example, the x axis isn’t clear due to the rectangular block at figure 10 (a).
(9) It is better to merge the table 4 and make it one unified table.
(10) In line 583, the box “(Gravel 1/Zone 1 (Sand 2/Zone 2) (Gravel 3/Zone 3) (Sand 4/Zone 4)” doesn’t seem to be useful. Please remove it.
(11) In line 672, you mentioned the figure 38 which doesn’t exist. Revise this part.
(12) Add more discussion to your manuscript with discussing your findings extensively and supporting them by references.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Most of my comments have appropriately been addressed by the authors and I can see an improvement in the manuscript. I would recommend to accept the revised version of the draft to be published.
Before finalizing the paper, please read it carefully and correct the minor errors such as "Therefore" (line 127), syntax and layout of figure 9, and position of figure 17 (it is covering page header).
