Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

With the climate change and glacier retreating, a rapid expansion of glacial lake and a raise in both the frequency and intensity of glacial lake outbursts flood occurred in the TPs. The authors make a comparative study of Jialong Co glacial lake before and after engineering management. It is very interesting and important, and suitable to publish in RS. However, I think some improvements are still necessary.

 

1, One of the main findings of this paper is that, the comprehensive engineering improved the stability of the moraine and lake dam. Here needs to strengthen the description in the main text. How it can reduce the GLOF risk，how to improve the stability.

 

2, The authors present the area change of Jialong Co from 2000 to 2021. But Li et al (2021) also give a result of the area change of this lake from 1988 to 2020. So, what is the difference? And why you must do it again? As Li D is one of the co-author in this paper.

Li, D., Shangguan, D., Wang, X., Ding, Y., Su, P., Liu, R., & Wang, M. (2021). Expansion and hazard risk assessment of glacial lake Jialong Co in the central Himalayas by using an unmanned surface vessel and remote sensing. Science of The Total Environment, 784, 147249

 

3, Just like the previous question, Li et al (2021) give a result of the depth of Jialong Co in 2020, and why you do the survey again? Has the shape of the bottom of the glacial lake changed? If you just want to obtain the result that the water level dropped 50 m, it is better you just use GPS to measure it.

 

4, Figure 9. The numerical values of the Fill and Excavation legend makes me a little unbelievable. I guess the value on the dividing line of Fill and Excavation should be 0. Am I right?

 

5, There is no Figure 10 in the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

 

The manuscript was very interesting and had several innovations, and the outputs are significant and relevant to the special issue.

 

I have written my comments in the manuscript. Some parts of it should be modified, as I mentioned below.

The conclusion and result section need to be rewritten with complete and proper English sentences. 

Literature and other citations need to be improved.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper should be publishable given some improvements are main regarding the following points: 
- There are some methodological issues which need be clarified.

- More explanation on the "project management" works and context should be given.

Please take a look to the commented manuscript I am sending attached.

Kind regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors are to be congratulated on a well-written, clear, concise paper - and one which is interesting to read. The illustrations are appropriate, and the paper was pleasantly concise given the information conveyed. I think that the paper will be well browsed over. My only question was the use of the units hm2 in some area statement - is this a Chinese unit or should it have been km2? 

Perhaps the importance of the findings are a bit overstated. I know failure of moraine lakes is a constant issue but it is one that has been lived with for millennia, so I would assume that the residents have a lot of experience in dealing with these things. The authors might like to think about "toning these down" a bit. 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx