Bank Processes and Revetment Erosion of a Large Lowland River: Case Study of the Lower Tisza River, Hungary

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.       The discussed revetments that were placed in the Tisza seem relatively old  (at least 50 years?) is the age of the materials a factor in accelerating destruction of bank reinforcements? Have they been mainatined or repaired since construction?

 

2.       The manuscript could benefit from more information on why bank reinforcement is necessary in this part of the river (add in Introduction?) and further, with some comment in the Discussion and Conclusions on the balance of benefits and potential problems caused by their presence. These are relatively expensive measures to implement and maintain, their presence, as part of the entire channelization scheme seems to have caused a range of  unfavourable processes such as incision, enhanced erosion and evacuation of sediment from this part of the river.

 

3.       It is indicated in the manuscript that the number of bars in the studied river course is decreasing, I assume this is is not compensated with bar area, but perhaps a comment on that could be useful.

4.       The use of the term ‘landslide’ does not seem to be clear in the manucript, please define if possible.

5.       Language and grammar should be checked throughout the manuscript for minor but visible errors (was vs. were etc.)

 

Few detailed comments:

l.84 -85 ‘…compare the in-channel flow processes at revetments with various age and conditions and at a non-revetted section ‘ – please rephrase, it is confusing

l. 111 the term  ‘rate’ is unclear here

l. 190 ‘There are twice more eroded revetments on the western bank..’ : is their number double in comparison with the other bank, or is the scale of revetment erosion larger?

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

 

Thank you very much for your useful comments! We believe, that based on these comments the quality of the manuscript improved. The paper went through a proofreading (by AJE) and grammar correction, thus hopefully now its English is also better.

Please, find enclosed your comments and our responses. The red colour indicates the added text fragments.

 

Thank you very much,

in the name of all authors,

Tímea Kiss

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript presents an important knowledge about relationship between construction of revetment and river channel morphology. The data are potentially interesting and worthy of eventual publication. I do see the need for some clarifications and smaller corrections, however, and I hope that you can share my arguments below.

 

General comment

1. As authors described in the introduction section, the channel plan form strongly affect the channel forming process as with the presence or absence of revetment. Relationship between channel planform and bank forming process should be described in discussion section.

 

2. Recommend to describe the suggestion for river channel management or maintenance and construction of revetment based on your research data in discussion section.

 

3. The paper has 17 figures. Authors need to reduce the figures by combining or deletion.

 

Specific comment

4. Introduction, L 99

The authors state that: “The narrow floodplain…..increased the flood risk….”. It indicates that revetment do not protect against floods, quite contrary they reduce flood safety. Consequently, what is the reason for revetment being built?

 

5. Introduction, L 104

Is the length of revetment described for both bank total?

 

6. Materials and Methods, L 143

The definition and measuring method of wetted width should be added.

 

7. Materials and Methods, L 150

How did you measure channel topography under water?

 

8. Materials and Methods

Structure of revetment such as presence or absence of foot protection, gradient, or materials should be described.

 

8. Results Figure 5,6, 7, 8

Plane figure described the location of each cross section should be added.

 

9. Figure 8

The same figure as figure.5 is indicated.

 

10. Figure 9, 10, 12

Does the information of the revetment at the top of the figure indicate left bank or right bank?

 

11. Figure 13, 14, 15, 16

・It is necessary to give the unit of the legend of flow velocity and scale of cross section profile.

・Structure of revetment should be added to the cross section profile.

 

12. Discussion

The cause of bank process is mixedly described both meandering and revetment in discussion section. The rationale of discrimination of the causes of bank process should be described.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

 

Thank you very much for your useful comments! We believe, that based on these comments the quality of the manuscript improved. The paper went through a proofreading (by AJE) and grammar correction, thus hopefully now its English is also better.

Please, find enclosed your comments and our responses. The red colour indicates the added text fragments.

 

Thank you very much,

in the name of all authors,

Tímea Kiss

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

 

Thank you very much for your useful comments! We believe, that based on these comments the quality of the manuscript improved. The paper went through a proofreading (by AJE) and grammar correction, thus hopefully now its English is also better.

Please, find enclosed your comments and our responses. The red colour indicates the added text fragments.

 

Thank you very much,

in the name of all authors,

Tímea Kiss

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been revised well. I think this manuscript will be acceptable.

Reviewer 3 Report

After the revision, the authors have corrected the ms. and now is suitable for publication