HSPF-Based Assessment of Inland Nutrient Source Control Strategies to Reduce Algal Blooms in Streams in Response to Future Climate Changes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments:
Row 38 and e.g. row 43 has different literature citations that needs to be corrected.
Row 64-73: Better explain literature where and for what was used HSPF and SWAT (some short overview).
Row 87: Same as Row 38 or 43…
Row 105: Can you explain which measured data were used for calibration of the first model [28],… parameters, frequency of measurements etc.
Row 108: Please show exponential equation…
Row 181: Explain/show how did you calculate nutrient loads for present state… so that can be seen e.g. reductions of 50% for TP and TP…
Row 216: Please discuss how low R2 values will influence on future model scenarios and try to explain why do you have low R2 values.
Row 266: Please better explain these changes on algal blooms…
Figure 5. Please show also present Chl-concentrations for 2011-2015…
Row 346: Please put some more discussion in the chapter.
Author Response
Dear Editor:
Please consider the revised manuscript Assessment of inland nutrient source control strategies to reduce algal blooms in streams in response to future climate changes using HSPF by Lee, Kim, Fabian and Kang for submission to sustainability.
We have revised the manuscript according to the comments from the reviewers. Please find the attached.
Thank you very much.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors
The paper tries to assess future pollution in a South Korean Basin using models. As with all models the results are highly dependent on the input data. Would substantially more information on the dataset utilized. Firstly, the water quality data was it collected from studied basin, for how many years how frequently were samples collected etc. Similarly, what climatic data were used. Where they from the watershed from how many stations for how many years etc.
It is unacceptable to send a manuscript and not follow the guidelines. There are several mistakes in regard to the reference sin the text. Just a few, follow: L38, 40, 60, 95, 153. References should be numbered.
In addition, I believe the journal recommends separate Results and Discussion sections.
Discussion is not really developed and while you talk about best management practices you really never state any in the discussion or conclusions.
Following are some more specific comments:
INTRODUCTION
L80. Please add “:” after “to”
STUDY SITE
L87: need to separate “mainstream” to “main stream”
THE HSPF MODEL SETUP AND CALIBRATION
L106. This is very ambiguous “In our previous study.” Please rephrase and clarify
CLIMATE CHANGE SCENARIOS
L162-166. Some more detail on the dataset utilized. Was this all of South Korea? For how many years was this dataset? The quality of this dataset really impacts the results!
SOURCE MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS
How did you select these scenarios? How feasible are the in real life? Some additional info would be helpful.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Model performance – More information about the dataset. How many years how frequency were the data collected? What type of data was used? A table with this information should be include in the methods. Only then can we judge the quality of the results.
Figure 2 caption can be more descriptive.
3.2 Impacts of future climate changes on algal blooms – Where the different statistically significant?
When you have more that graph in a Figure more appropriate to have a, b etc. and explain what each is.
3.3 Effects of different nutrient source management strategies – How where these best management practice selected. Where did you get the data for the model? Did you conduct experiments or where they from other researchers? Was the data used from experiments in South Korea or in other regions? Best management practices effectiveness can differ from region to region.
No trues discussion mostly statement of the results. In addition, the journal format requires I believe separate results and discussion sections.
CONCLUSION
Mostly reiteration of the results would have like he authors to provide some actual recommendation of bets management practices.
Author Response
Dear Editor:
Please consider the revised manuscript Assessment of inland nutrient source control strategies to reduce algal blooms in streams in response to future climate changes using HSPF by Lee, Kim, Fabian and Kang for submission to sustainability.
We have revised the manuscript according to the comments from the reviewers. Please find the attached.
Thank you very much.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript introduced the solution of the actual ecologic problem of algal blooms in streams
in response to future climate changes by using the Hydrological Simulation Program-FORTRAN (HSPF) of three nutrient load reduction scenarios with each climate change scenario. It was concluded that the mean Chl-a concentrations were predicted to increase by 5-10% and 23-29%, respectively, while average algal outbreak cases per year (defined as a day with a Chl-a concentration greater than or equal to 20 100 μg/L) was predicted to decrease by 31-88%, compared to present (2011-2015), reduction of TP and TN from urban, agricultural and grassland by 50% (S1) was predicted to de-26 crease the algal outbreaks by 20%-58%.
The paper is well documented. The results of HSPF were interpreted clearly justifying the scenarios. The results are illustrated properly; figs and graphs are clear and right enough.
Author Response
Dear Editor:
Please consider the revised manuscript Assessment of inland nutrient source control strategies to reduce algal blooms in streams in response to future climate changes using HSPF by Lee, Kim, Fabian and Kang for submission to sustainability.
Thank you very much.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
None.
Author Response
Dear Editor:
Please consider the revised manuscript Assessment of inland nutrient source control strategies to reduce algal blooms in streams in response to future climate changes using HSPF by Lee, Kim, Fabian and Kang for submission to sustainability.
We have revised the manuscript according to the comments from the reviewers. Please find the attached.
Thank you very much.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors
When using models, the input data is one of the crucial elements for the model to provide reliable outputs
I requested more information on the input data especially water quality but this was ot provided. This data is essential for the calibration of the model.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer2
Please consider the revised manuscript Assessment of inland nutrient source control strategies to reduce algal blooms in streams in response to future climate changes using HSPF by Lee, Kim, Fabian and Kang for submission to sustainability.
We have revised the manuscript according to the comments from the reviewers. Please find the attached.
Thank you very much.
Reviewer2
When using models, the input data is one of the crucial elements for the model to provide reliable outputs. I requested more information on the input data especially water quality but this was ot provided. This data is essential for the calibration of the model.
Answer: We have revised the sentence to the following (lines 139-146): “For the calibration, the water quality and flow data at the outlet point (Figure 1) of the Seom Watershed were obtained from MOE, Korea (http://water.nier.go.kr/web/waterMeasure?pMENU_NO=2). The flow rate data were the daily values of the river discharge; the water quality data included water temperature (TW), concentrations of Chl-a, phosphate (PO43−), nitrate (NO3-), ammonium (NH4+), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP) and suspended solids (SS) measured at intervals of 5–8 days [31]. More details on the HSPF modification, model setup and calibration procedure can be found in Lee et al [31]”
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
