Influence of Anthropogenic Loads on Surface Water Status: A Case Study in Lithuania

I found the topic of the study very interesting and in line with the scope of the journal. To improve the overall quality of the manuscript, I have some suggestion/comments as below:

Section 2.2. Sample Preparation (Collection) is very dense and requires an expert knowledge of the subject. A better explanation would be advisable. It is hard to understand it.

Thank you very much for the comments. They are very valuable, and will help - significantly improve the quality of the article.

The methodology section 2.3. Assessment of Pollution Sources has been rewritten.

The quality of the figures 1 and 2 may be improved, at least in my pdf they are getting a bit distorted

Figures 1 and 2 are compiled by ArcGIS. If there are problems with printing - will be adjusted

Need a better explanation in table 1 to 6. It is hard to understand it and you should comment on the values of the influence of anthropogenic loads in basins on the total phosphorus and nitrogen concentration in the water, influence of anthropogenic loads in basins on the EQR (ecological quality ratio) values of chlorophyll “a” in the water, the taxonomic composition and abundance of macrophytes, MEI in the water, abundance and age of ichthyofauna, LFI (lake fish index), in the water and abundance of 318 EPT (Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies)) taxa in the water.

Multiple regression analysis of the influence of anthropogenic loads in basins on the total phosphorus concentration in the water showed that the higher the total P concentration in municipal and surface wastewater was, the higher the total P value in the water, and the larger the area of organic farms in lake feeding basins was, the lower the total P value in the water. The higher the concentrations of total N from arable land not connected to the sewerage network, households, and municipal wastewater and the larger the area of the water body basin and area of agricultural land were, the higher the value of the total N in the water. The higher the total N concentration from meadow pastures and the larger the area of organic farms in the lakes feeding the basins were, the lower the total N concentration in the water. The higher the relative number of animals in the basin and the larger the area of agricultural land in the basin were, the higher the chlorophyll “a” LFI value. The lower the macrophyte taxonomic composition and abundance MEI values and the lower the taxonomic composition and abundance values of zoobenthos in the water were, the poorer the water status. The higher the percentage of organic farms in the basin; the higher the taxonomic composition, abundance and age of the ichthyofauna in the water; and the higher the taxonomic composition and abundance values of the zoobenthos in the water were, the better the water status.

The discussion section needs to expand and comment on the results obtained.

Done. Thank You.

References: bibliographic citations should be reviewed (Example: 14. FAOSTAT. Availabe online, ...)

Done. Thank You.

English needs to be revised.

This document certifies that the manuscript

Influence of Anthropogenic Loads on Surface Water Status: A Case Study in

Lithuania

prepared by the authors

Laima Česonienė , Daiva Šileikienė, Vitas Marozas and Laura Čiteikė

was edited for proper English language, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and overall style

by one or more of the highly qualified native English speaking editors at AJE.

This certificate was issued on March 9, 2021 and may be verified

on the AJE website using the verification code 254F-DF5D-59B5-AD49-F9A8 .

The introduction section is well written with recent references. I appreciate the fact that the authors described the methodology used in detail in the study. It helps to understand the results section thoroughly. However, I have some concerns about the different parts of the manuscript. Moreover, the paper lacks many major details. I suggest a major revision to address a few issues. If the authors address carefully the comments, I’ll recommend the publication of the manuscript in the journal.

Thank you very much for the comments. They are very valuable, and will help - significantly improve the quality of the article.

Please, do include more implications of the results of the study in the conclusion and abstract sections

Thank You very much. Done.

The authors failed to perform some tests on the data before doing the regression analysis.

The authors failed to discuss in depth the results of the study. The current discussion is superficial and needs more comparison with similar previous studies.

I suggest the authors conduct the following tests on the data before the regression analysis in Tables 1 to 5:

-multicollinerity test;

-endogeneity test;

-homoscedasticity test.

Because without analyzing the results of these tests, one can say that the results of the regression analyses are biased and the coefficients should not be used for prediction without the homoscedasticity test done.

The regression model is appropriate because:

·       Levene test used for endogeneity test; R code was used to generate the analyzes in this section, R² ≥ 0.20.

·       ANOVA p <0.05.

·       Significant shows t tests p <0.05.

·       All SWFs ≤ 4 (no multicollinearity

·       problems).

·       All Cook measure values ≤ 1.