Algal Boom Characteristics of Yeongsan River Based on Weir and Estuary Dam Operating Conditions Using EFDC-NIER Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See attached comments
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
I would like to extend our gratitude and appreciation to you for your thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the insightful and constructive comments and suggestions which have significantly helped us to improve our manuscript.
We have provided point-by-point responses to your comments and questions.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper showed the impact of the operation of a weir and a dam on the water quality in the river system. This work is interesting, but I felt this was like an environmental assessment report. Considering this would be an original research paper, the authors need to address the paper's novelty and compare it with former relevant research. I suggest that the introduction, results, and discussion parts should be rewritten to focus on this point.
Specific Comments:
1. p2, ll.85–92: This should be focused on the aims to focus on the novelty of the study. Constructing a model is a part of the method. Moreover, please explore the relevant research. The authors need to find studies focus on the water quality issue around an estuary, which does not matter if it is a field study or model study. Then the authors need to discuss them with their results.
2. p.4, l.158: If possible, please show the locations of Mokpo 3,4 and 8 stations.
3. p.6, l.188: Why the authors needed to set 9 phytotron groups. Considering Fig. 4 (b), (d), it seems that 6 groups are enough.
4. p.6, l.192: How did the authors measure the algae carbon mass/cell?
5. p.6, l.194: If possible, please show the table of model key parameters for each phytoplankton in the appendix.
6. p.7, ll.196–208: Please add the information of the data used for the model assessment (frequency of the monitoring and the depth of the sampling or measurement).
7. p.7, l.208: Why was the model assessed by only cyanobacteria in phytoplankton groups? I am afraid that if the model is applied to a different year, the result might not be good as this year in case using the same parameters. How can the authors assure the robustness of the model?
8. p. 7, ll.211–215: This is an important part. Please clearly explain the reason why the authors set these scenarios.
9. p.14 ll.314–315: Cell number is the total or for cyanobacteria?
Author Response
I would like to extend our gratitude and appreciation to you for your thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the insightful and constructive comments and suggestions which have significantly helped us to improve our manuscript.
We have provided point-by-point responses to your comments and questions.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the authors responding very well to review comments on the first draft of the paper and I believe the paper is worthy of publication. There are some corrections that could be made to enhance the paper and a complete reread to ensure verb tenses are correct is needed. I have identified what I believe are some problems:
Line 50: give location Lake Frances (Oklahoma-Arkansas)
Line 51: add an a “a simple equation”
Line 53: change des Moines River to Des Moines River (Iowa)
Line 54: eliminate “the” and just state “two reservoirs”
Line 59: Change “was” to “were”
Line 61: remove , and add “and”
Line 65: need to add caused before frequent
Line 124: Should mountain be changed to mountains and is the – needed
Line 219: Can’t Remember if ME is defined earlier in paper; if not add it
Line 221: Still unclear if untreated sewage is being discharged; if treated sya so with wastewater treatment plants
Line 270: change has to have
Line 286: Should deviation be Deviation
Table 4: No description of what a, b, c, and d stand for so Table 4 adds little information
Table 5: T-N T-P should use conventional form of TN and TP
Line 364: change is to are
Line 462: Remove “would like to” and just say “We thank”; otherwise implys you may not; also thank funding agency.
I know we differed on some issues and I defer to your thoughts, but I still think the paper could be shortened during your final editing,
Author Response
I would like to extend our gratitude and appreciation to you for your thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the insightful and constructive comments and suggestions which have significantly helped us to improve our manuscript.
We have provided point-by-point responses to your comments and questions.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I appreciate the efforts of authors to improve the manuscript. Now the paper is easy to read and understandable. There are some minor points to be corrected before the publication.
Specific Comments:
- p.1, l.19: EL. 3.7 -> EL. 3.7 m
- p.1, ll.26-28: We cannot directly compare the decrease of chlorophyll-a with that of algal bloom. Please describe clearly.
- p.1, ll.27–28: "This is because diatoms in riverine system can grow in a relatively stable manner with low water levels or fast water flow and settle upon entering reservoirs." is not clear.
- p.1, l.33: the and sea -> the sea and what?
- p.2, l.120: I am sure if this sentence is needed or not.
- p.20, l.405: "trough" may be a typo.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
