Review Reports - Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis of Input Conditions in a Large Shallow Lake Based on the Latin Hypercube Sampling and Morris Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled "Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of input conditions in a large shallow lake based on the Latin hypercube sampling and Morris methods" is scientifically sound. However, the authors should consider the following comments.

P1: The graphical abstract is hardly readable.
P1: Typo exists in the figure in the graphical abstract, and in the manuscript. Correct "Sedmident" in the brown area. It is repeated twice.
P1: In the same figure, do not type with red on a blue background.
P1: The highlights have to be the major findings of the study, and have to be complete sentences.
P1, L20: After "the following:", number the sentences as (1), (2), ...
P1, Abstract: The abstract is too short. Expand it with more details, and highlights, findings, recommendations.
P2, L43: Citation issue. MDPI journals do not follow Author (year) style. Please only mention the authors' names and delete year. Do the same throughout the manuscript.
P2, L73: I recommend avoiding using "we". Use passive voice instead.
P3, L87: This is a very general statement. Please elaborate more on that.
P 3, L102: Figure. 1 --> Figure 1 Correct in other places as well.
P3, Figure 1: Put scale on the map.
P3, L112: Separate numbers after every 3 digits, such as: 5,881
P5, Figure 4: This figure looks like a scanned version from a document. Please reproduce and paraphrase it in Visio or Word.
P6, L168: from --> during
Change the color of all red text to black.
P13, Conclusion: Add some text before the numbered paragraphs, mentioning what you studied, and how, and then mention the main findings.
The authors are encouraged to use the following references, where appropriate, to enhance the quality of their manuscript:
Water Quality Modeling of Mahabad Dam Watershed–Reservoir System under Climate Change Conditions, using SWAT and System Dynamics. Water, 2019, 11, 394. DOI: 10.3390/w11020394
Parametric uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of hydrodynamic processes for a large shallow freshwater lake, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 60:6, 1078-1095, DOI: 10.1080/02626667.2014.948444

Author Response

Letter for Editors and Reviewers:

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Thank you very much for your advice and guidance to our paper, and we have been corrected the problems we have, explained the reasons to some conclusions. Also we have added the corrected lines in the end(Track change version) and a clean version. And we will correct all problems on time if we have other problems later.

Thank you very much again.

Best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Ruichen.

P1: The graphical abstract is hardly readable.

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. We have added the title about the figures so that readers can know them well. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 11)

P1: Typo exists in the figure in the graphical abstract, and in the manuscript. Correct "Sedmident" in the brown area. It is repeated twice.

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. We have corrected the “Sedmident” to “Sediment”. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 11,376)

P1: In the same figure, do not type with red on a blue background.

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. We have corrected the color to black. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 11,376)

P1: The highlights have to be the major findings of the study, and have to be complete sentences.

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. We have corrected the highlights. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 14)

Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of input conditions in shallow lakes;
Study on spatiotemporal law of water quality under input conditions;
Complete explanation of the mechanism about algae growth.

P1, L20: After "the following:", number the sentences as (1), (2), ...

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. We have number the sentences already. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 22-38)

P1, Abstract: The abstract is too short. Expand it with more details, and highlights, findings, recommendations.

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. We have improved the abstract with more details. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 22-38)

P2, L43: Citation issue. MDPI journals do not follow Author (year) style. Please only mention the authors' names and delete year. Do the same throughout the manuscript.

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. We have deleted the year. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 53-109)

P2, L73: I recommend avoiding using "we". Use passive voice instead.

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. We have corrected the sentence to the “According to the actual situation of this study, the LHS and Morris methods have been used to do the uncertainly and sensitivity analysis about input conditions.”. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 93)

P3, L87: This is a very general statement. Please elaborate more on that.

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. We have elaborated the details “Based on the analysis results of the uncertainty and sensitivity of input conditions to Tai Lake, the specific reasons that affect the water quality indicators of the lake body will be confirmed, and then the treatment plan through feasible measures could be developed to provide quantitative support for pollution control.”. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 107-110)

P 3, L102: Figure. 1 --> Figure 1 Correct in other places as well.

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. We have corrected all the figures. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 1-487)

P3, Figure 1: Put scale on the map.

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. We have added the scale on the map. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 129)

P3, L112: Separate numbers after every 3 digits, such as: 5,881

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. We have corrected them. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 138,143)

P5, Figure 4: This figure looks like a scanned version from a document. Please reproduce and paraphrase it in Visio or Word.

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. We have corrected it to word. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 171-188)

P6, L168: from --> during

Change the color of all red text to black.

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. We have corrected it to during and change the red text to black. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 206,214)

P13, Conclusion: Add some text before the numbered paragraphs, mentioning what you studied, and how, and then mention the main findings.

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. We have added the text before the numberd paragraph. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 385-388)

Based on the measured basic data, LHS and Morris analysis methods were used to analyze the uncertainty and sensitivity of input conditions for Tai Lake. It is mainly studied and discussed from three aspects of climatic conditions, water quality conditions and hydrodynamic conditions, the specific conclusions are as follows:

The authors are encouraged to use the following references, where appropriate, to enhance the quality of their manuscript:

Water Quality Modeling of Mahabad Dam Watershed–Reservoir System under Climate Change Conditions, using SWAT and System Dynamics. Water, 2019, 11, 394. DOI: 10.3390/w11020394

Parametric uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of hydrodynamic processes for a large shallow freshwater lake, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 60:6, 1078-1095, DOI: 10.1080/02626667.2014.948444

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. We have added the references in this manuscript. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 15,368,375)

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is well prepared. The approach to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis for the Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) of shallow lake is interesting. Methodology is adequate, justified by the data. Graphic abstract and figures are necessary and clear. I have no specific comments to the text.

In my opinion the manuscript has a potential to be of interest of broader scientific audiendce and worth publishing in Water journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript provides important and helpful information on modeling approaches for prediction of water quality and management in lakes. The manuscript offers a detailed modeling approach using Eco-lab model as the modeling tool, and two methods of Latin Hypercube Sampling and Morris uncertainty analysis. The manuscript is organized and logical. Below are some revision recommendations for the authors’ consideration.

Line 31: An introductory sentence would be helpful here to provide some background on the topic of lake water quality modeling, before getting into the content about internal parameters and external input conditions.

Line 73: Please specifically state what “these two analysis methods” are: Do you mean LHS and Morris sensitivity methods?

Line 87: From the statement, “The Study results are expected to provide a scientific basis for future research”, it is unclear what existing gap in knowledge or shortcoming does the current research fulfill.

Line 92: The statement, “the average water depth does not exceed 2 m.”, is a little confusing. It would be helpful to provide a range of minimum to maximum values. Is the noted range for the surface elevation in Figure 1, representative of the water depth?

Figure 3: Define abbreviations: IN, DN, IP, DP, PC, PP, PN; are these notations for inorganic and dissolved nitrogen and phosphorous; and particulate constituents? Is the boxed term at the bottom of the diagram is sediment?

Line 183: Change Chl-A to Chl-a for consistency.

Lin 226-227: Please clarify: Is the statement about the significant difference between summer and autumn uncertainty based on statistical comparison?

Line 232: By “overall pollution goal”, do you mean pollution control goal?

Figure 9: The text inside the graph boxes are cut-off.

Line 323: By “lake water quality can be quickly reduced”, do you mean improved instead of reduced? Additionally, what timeframe does the word “quickly” represent?

Author Response

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. We have added the title about the figures so that readers can know them well. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 31)

Line 73: Please specifically state what “these two analysis methods” are: Do you mean LHS and Morris sensitivity methods?

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. We have corrected the statement to “the water depth is from 0 to 2m”; and elevation is not depth, is the water level, depth should minus the bottom elevation. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 96)

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. Yes, it is the correct meaning. We have corrected word “sedmident” to “sediment”.Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 135)

Line 183: Change Chl-A to Chl-a for consistency.

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. We have corrected it to the Chl-a. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 190)

Lin 226-227: Please clarify: Is the statement about the significant difference between summer and autumn uncertainty based on statistical comparison?

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. It is based on the measured data and model calculate together. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 232-234)

Line 232: By “overall pollution goal”, do you mean pollution control goal?

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. Yes, we have corrected it to the pollution control goal. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 237)

Figure 9: The text inside the graph boxes are cut-off.

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. We have cut-of the text in the graph. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 299)

Line 323: By “lake water quality can be quickly reduced”, do you mean improved instead of reduced? Additionally, what timeframe does the word “quickly” represent?

Response: Dear Reviewer and Editor. We have corrected the “reduced” to the “improved”, and the timeframe should depend on the input speed from the watershed, we can not give a specific number by research now. Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. (Line 325)

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.