Next Article in Journal
Ranking Approach to Scheduling Repairs of a Water Distribution System for the Post-Disaster Response and Restoration Service
Next Article in Special Issue
Algal Bloom Occurrence and Effects in Russia
Previous Article in Journal
Sea Surface Circulation Structures in the Malta-Sicily Channel from Remote Sensing Data
Previous Article in Special Issue
Assessing the Self-Purification Capacity of Surface Waters in Lake Baikal Watershed
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Changes in Nutrient Concentrations of Two Streams in Western Lithuania with Focus on Shrinkage of Agriculture and Effect of Climate, Drainage Runoff and Soil Factors

Water 2019, 11(8), 1590; https://doi.org/10.3390/w11081590
by Angelija Bučienė 1,*, Arvydas Povilaitis 2, Valdas Langas 1, Martynas Bučas 1, Jolita Petkuvienė 1, Diana Vaičiūtė 1 and Saulius Gužys 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2019, 11(8), 1590; https://doi.org/10.3390/w11081590
Submission received: 15 May 2019 / Revised: 23 June 2019 / Accepted: 29 July 2019 / Published: 31 July 2019

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author used SWAT model to simulate solute transport processes such as N and P, but the model calibration, verification and other processes are lacking, so it is suggested to add relevant contents.

Author Response

Please see the the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for letting me review this paper. The authors present an analysis of the variations of N and P concentration in two streams, being one the main tributary of the other. The approach is both at field level, through the collection and analysis of water samples and SWAT modelling. They collected field data but they were not able to analyse and present the results in a correct way. In addition, they uses the SWAT model but they did not explain the calibration and validation phase and neither the results.

 My advice is to request major revisions.

Major revisions are required in both the organization of the text, the analysis and comment on results and in the English language. It has also to be reorganized, move and add parts.

The detailed comments are presented here and as note in the text.

 The title does not sound correctly.

The keywords must not contain the same words of the title

The abstract should be re written. It is not corresponding to an abstract structure

The authors did not explain well that the reduction in N and P concentration in the two rivers is of course reduced by the shrinkage of agricultural areas but also by the other analysed factors

In materials and methods re-organize according to the study area description, data collection and data for the SWAT model. It is lacking how the climatic data are analysed

In results climatic conditions section: it is not clear the objective of the analysis. The average annual precipitation could not be an interval ! (line 170)

Figure 2 b: not clear the capitation

Wet dry and normal year (line 174): what the authors apply for the classification ? SPI ?

Line 184-187 not clear

Line 190-191 How high temperatures can enhance weathering and stream bank erosion ???

Line 204-206 Rephrase not clear

Figure 4: How the authors justify the differences in D1 and D1 plot in the 30-60 cm ?

There is no description on the treatments for D1 and D

Line 255: figure 5 presents values in kg/ha and the analysis of results is made in %. Explain

Figure 6: captation reformulate

Table 2: is not clear rotate putting the values for the same catchment close for seeing the changes in time.

Line 279: there are results on interviews without explaining how the data have been collected

Table 4: the presented results are not clear.

Discussion and conclusions need much more attention. Rephrase with accuracy justifying based also on collected references.

 

I think the authors should work a lot on the text for rephrasing the sentences, put in the English order the words. Also punctuation should be modified.

 


Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been improved a lot- It can be published as it is

Back to TopTop