Testing Landscape, Climate and Lithology Impact on Carbon, Major and Trace Elements of the Lena River and Its Tributaries during a Spring Flood Period
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I agree that it is needed to investigate what determines water chemistry in Arctic region like this study, given that climate change will cause a change in terrestrial vegetation and permafrost regime. However, some discussion seems confusing and is not fully explained. Moreover, there are many small mistakes such as spelling, which is needed to revise. Please refer to the Specific comments in the WORD file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
See attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Review comments attached in pdf.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
See attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I find that this is a good research manuscript on the water composition of one of the main rivers of Rusia. As this is a long river and drain basin, this kind of studies are difficult, expensive, time consuming in terms of work. In terms of discussion of results it is really complex as many factors will affect to the water composition, depending on the time or year, geology, landscape, soil types, vegetation cover among others. Thus, finding correlations between composition and factors and demonstrate them is really a very hard task. I find that the authors get this purpose in part. After reading the paper I wonder if all the factors have been taken into account. This comment, is not intended to detract from the merit of the authors. The article is very meritorious and it is necessary to carry out this type of studies. I think that this work is very appropriate for the journal and should be accepted, although I believe that some improvements are necessary first. I include bellow some major and minor comments that I believe will help to improve the text.
Major comments
In section 4.1 the authors discuss the possible correlation with elements with some factors. Correlation with rocks requires a more detailed description of rocks. They are vague and difficult to assess in the present version. Please, provide a clearer description of some rock types (crystalline?)
In section 4.3., lines 373 to 379, is this your hypothesis or is there any reference to this? This occurs when river flows through carbonate rocks? Where are the salt deposits?
Minor comments
Line 61: I understand that you refer to climate warming events, in general, didn’t you? Any reference to the importance of climate warming as player in the element delivery is required.
Line 101: How did you choose such tributaries? By the discharge flow? Considering geographical poition? Any other reason?
Line 108: please, clarify ir they are 20 o30 tributaries. You sometimes mention 20 and sometimes 30.
Line 122: With crystalline do you refer to magmatic? Plutonic? Please, be more clear.
Lines 128-131: Please, here it is necessary to provide any data on the annual average, base flow and peak discharge with references.
Lines 177-178: again you refer to acidic crystalline, did you refer to felsic plutonic? Please, be more clear and correct about the rocks. This is a very important question. You also refer to terrigenous silicate rocks, do you mean sedimentary siliciclastic?
Figure 1. What does LP mean?
Line 321: “flood” instead “food”
Line 470: as you are in conclusions section and most correlations are not strong I will use “our data suggest” more than “we demonstrate”.
Author Response
see attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper seems well improved. I just recommend you to revise a few words.
356: "coastal abrasion" is erosion in seaside, I think you would like to say "riverbank erosion".
439: evaporate deposits⇒ evaporite deposits
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript can be accepted for publication
