Relative Performance of 1-D Versus 3-D Hydrodynamic, Water-Quality Models for Predicting Water Temperature and Oxygen in a Shallow, Eutrophic, Managed Reservoir
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript compared the GLM and Si3D Models in a shallow, eutrophic, managed reservoir. Based on the result, the authors give some suggestions on the model selection. The comparisons are complete and the conclusions are persuasive. The manuscript is overall well written and a few concerns need to be addressed before publication.
The authors may need to highlight their contributions on the models, especially on abstract and conclusions. The novelty (other than mere comparison) is not obvious.
Some typos, eg. subsection title 2.1 2.1...
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your review and the comments on our manuscript. They are useful for improving the manuscript. The attached file presents point-to-point responses to all the comments.
Many thanks,
Xiamei MAN
on behalf of all co-authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper showed the relative performance of 1-D versus 3-D hydrodynamic, water-quality models in a reservoir. I appreciate the great efforts that the authors had performed to test models in many situations. Unfortunately, the paper structure is not well organized, which made me confuse the main objects of the paper (1D vs 3D, time steps, bubble plume, or sediment heat module). The results and discussions are not clearly separated. Moreover, the discussion part is weak. I suggest the paper only focus on the main objects to be published. Specific comments are as follows.
Specific Comments:
- The focus of the paper is not clear. 1D vs 3D? Time step? bubble plume performance? Sediment heat module? The focuses should be addressed in Introduction and discussed later.
- Introduction can be more concise. Please cite important references in the discussion part to refer previous works.
- There are some numbering typos.
- Study methods -> 2. study methods and three 2.1.
- All figures are not clear in pdf file I got. For example, Fig.1 is not clear for white lines. I hope original figures are OK.
- Table 2 is not clear. It is better to explain the name (why starting EM15 in 2015. 15th operation in 2015? But two operations for DoY 151 and 153??)
- p.6, LL.218-224: This seems to be a part of Introduction.
- p.6. LL.228-230: There is no description of sediment heat module before. This part seems weird.
- p.7, 3.2.1 GLM-AED2 Time-Step Dependence Tests
Please explain how the input data (B.C.) were processed. For example, did the authors use 6-hour average wind speed for 21,600 s time-step calculation? If so, it is better to show the variation of BC data (some statistical values). There is no information how the weather condition and inflow condition changed during the simulation periods, which could affect the performance of the simulations.
- Table 3 is not clear. Please explain the definition of "Absolute variation". Moreover, explain the definition of thermocline depth or metalimnion bottom depth here.
- Table 4. The definition of the whole-lake RMSEs is not clear.
- Table 5. Grid numbers is not clear. Maybe cell numbers is better. Please explain the meaning of ± in the table.
- p.11, l.340 Please explain or define the "stratified period" and "mixed period".
- Figure 6. Please add (a) and (b) in the figures. Please explain the bars in figures.
- p.11, L.354 I could not find Table A.1. Instead, there are two Table 1.
- p.12 It is better to use the same order for DNB and DMPR in Fig7 and Table 6.
- 3.3 Plume Detrainment Location Tests: This section is not directly relevant in the paper. It might be better to delete this part.
- 3.2 shows some results and 4. Results and Discussion also shows results. It is better to clearly separate results and discussion.
- p.18, L.512-514 I could not understand the explanation here.
- In Figures 11 and 12, after the last filed data, there are still contours. How the authors made contours after the last black inverse triangle?
- p.19, LL.527-528 Why Si3D-AED2 is better than GLM-AED2 for artificial mixing? Please add some discussion.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your review and the comments on the manuscript. They are useful for improving the manuscript. The attached file presents point-by-point responses to all the comments.
Thanks,
Xiamei MAN
on behalf of all co-authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been improved greatly. All my previous comments were addressed. I consider the paper is nearly ready to publish. But still there are numbering typos (two Table 2). Authors needs to carefully check the numbering.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments. We have fixed the numbering typos and checked the numbering carefully.
