Response Relationship between the Upward or Downward Moving Distance of Main Stream Zone and Water and Sediment Conditions in Wandering Channels
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Main comments:
1. The novelty of the research is not clear enough in the manuscript. If this is a methodological novelty, why is it not discussed, considering the vast international experience? The list of references contains only works by China's authors. An international journal requires a broader view of the issue under study.
2. Is your research completely problem-free? There should be a section in the manuscript on the limitations and uncertainties of your study. Authors must be more critical of the findings.
3. Please provide in the text of the manuscript more specific practical recommendations arising from your research.
4. The English language of the manuscript should be improved. In addition to stylistics, this applies to long sentences (for example, lines 86-98).
5. I recommend shortening the Introduction section since there are many well-known facts, especially in the first half of the section.
Additional comments:
6. What is the scale on the bottom panel of Figure 1?
7. Why does the manuscript contain sections “3. Results "and" 4. Results and discussion"?
8. Who is the author of the empirical formula (1)? There is no link to the source.
9. Figure 2. What do the red and blue circles on the graph mean?
10. Figures 3 and 4. In the captions of the figures, please write what the letters A, B, C, D ... mean. How do these symbols relate to the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 ... in the bottom panel of Figure 1?
11. I recommend correcting the title of the manuscript. In my opinion, the phrases "Uplift and Down-dip of River Regimes" and "Water and Sediment Conditions" are not entirely correct or out of the manuscript context.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank you very much for your advice and guidance on this paper, which has benefited me a lot. The following are the changes made to this article based on reviewer comments, all of which have been highlighted in red.
Review opinion 1: The novelty of the research is not clear enough in the manuscript. If this is a methodological novelty, why is it not discussed, considering the vast international experience? The list of references contains only works by China's authors. An international journal requires a broader view of the issue under study.
Reply: The paper has been appropriately modified according to the comments of reviewers. Adding some discussion contents in Section 4.3 of the discussion part and international references. Seeing the red font modification in the paper for details please.
Review opinion 2: Is your research completely problem-free? There should be a section in the manuscript on the limitations and uncertainties of your study. Authors must be more critical of the findings.
Reply: This question has been described in Section 4.3 (1) of the discussion. Seeing the red font modification in the text for details please.
Review opinion 3: Please provide in the text of the manuscript more specific practical recommendations arising from your research.
Reply: The paragraph above in Figure 8 shows the quantitative relationship between the specific river regime uplift and down-dip distance and the dynamic change of water and sediment. It can give specific guidance for engineering practice.
Review opinion 4: The English language of the manuscript should be improved. In addition to stylistics, this applies to long sentences (for example, lines 86-98).
Reply: The language has been polished by a professional English polishing organization.
Review opinion 5: I recommend shortening the Introduction section since there are many well-known facts, especially in the first half of the section.
Reply: The introduction has been modified.
Review opinion 6: What is the scale on the bottom panel of Figure 1?
Reply: Scale has been added to the graph.
Review opinion 7: Why does the manuscript contain sections “3. Results "and" 4. Results and discussion"?
Reply: The title of Part 3 has been modified: "Methods"
Review opinion 8: Who is the author of the empirical formula (1)? There is no link to the source.
Reply: The formula (1) was constructed by the author of this paper and has been added in this paper. Seeing the red font modification in the text for details please.
Review opinion 9: Figure 2. What do the red and blue circles on the graph mean?
Reply: It has been marked in Figure 2: red circle represents Jiahetan station data, and blue circle represents Huayuankou Station data.
Review opinion 10: Figures 3 and 4. In the captions of the figures, please write what the letters A, B, C, D ... mean. How do these symbols relate to the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 ... in the bottom panel of Figure 1?
Reply: The English letters A, B, C, D... In Figure 3 and Figure 4 represent river regulation works, and the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4…in Figure 1 also represent river regulation works. They have the same purpose and different test methods. The same purpose is to study the influence of different water and sediment dynamic conditions on the change of river regime. The difference is that: In Figure 1, basing on the natural wandering channel of the lower Yellow River with relatively stable river regime, a project with relatively stable outflow was selected to study the changes of the main sliding point of the next project under different water and sediment dynamic conditions, which is a quantitative analysis with natural measured data. In Figure 3, basing on a model test, to study the control effect of fixed river regulation works on river regime stability under different water and sediment dynamic conditions. Here is a qualitative description of the results of model tests.
Review opinion 11: I recommend correcting the title of the manuscript. In my opinion, the phrases "Uplift and Down-dip of River Regimes" and "Water and Sediment Conditions" are not entirely correct or out of the manuscript context.
Reply: According to the comments of reviewers, the title of the article is revised as follows: Response Relationship Between Uplift and Down-dip Distance of River Regime and Dynamic Change of Water and Sediment in Wandering Channel
Thank you again for your guidance on this paper!
Best wishes
Linjuan Xu
December 9, 2021
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript represents a novel qualitative research using the historic water and sediment data investigating the relationship between the uplift and down-dip of the river regimes. Authors consider the dynamic changes of water and sediment through simulation and experiments. The results showed that in the case of stable wandering river regimes under finite boundary control, when the conditions of upstream incoming water and sediment changed, their stability would experience changes accordingly.
Several revisions and improvements are essential. For instance the description and the schematic representaion the uplift and down-dip in the figure figure one is not adequte and not currently clear for the reader. Further elaboration is essential on the direction and movement regimes and also dynamics.
One of the further major issues which should be addressed the validation of the simulation. Please elaborate on the simulation and add materials on the validation technique.
The relevance of the research to Sustainable Water Resources Management and Planning under Climate Change must be further highlighted in the introduction and also in the discussions.
Please also consider the following minor comments:
Although the paper has appropriate length and informative content, several parts must be improved and written in better grammar and syntax. It would be essential if authors would consider revising the organization and composition of the manuscript, in terms of the definition/justification of the objectives, description of the method, the accomplishment of the objective, and results.
The paper is generally difficult to follow. Paragraphs and sentences are not well connected. Furthermore, I advise considering using standard keywords to better present the research.
Please revise the abstract according to the journal guideline. It must be under 200 words. The research question, method, and the results must be briefly communicated. The abstract must be more informative. I suggest having four paragraphs in the introduction for; describing the concept, research gap, contribution, and the organization of the paper. The motivation has the potential to be more elaborated. You may add materials on why doing this research is essential, and what this article would add to the current knowledge, etc.
The originality of the paper is not discussed well. The research question must be clearly given in the introduction, in addition to some words on the testable hypothesis. Please elaborate on the importance of this work. Please discuss if the paper suitable for broad international interest and applications or better suited for the local application? Elaborate and discuss this in the introduction.
State of the art needs improvement. A detailed description of the cited references is essential. Several recently published papers are not included in the review section. In fact, the acknowledgment of the past related work by others, in the reference list, is not sufficient. Consequently, the contribution of the paper is not clear. Furthermore, consider elaborating on the suitability of the paper and relevance to the journal. Kindly note that references cited must be up to date.
Elaborate on the method used and why used this method.
Limitations and validation are not discussed adequately. The research question and hypothesis must be answered and discussed clearly in the discussion and conclusions. Please communicate the future research. The lessons learned must be further elaborated in the conclusion by discussing the results to the community and the future impacts. What is your perspective on future research?
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank you very much for your advice and guidance on this paper, which has benefited me a lot. The following are the changes made to this article based on reviewer comments, all of which have been highlighted in red.
Review opinion 1: Several revisions and improvements are essential. For instance, the description and the schematic representation the uplift and down-dip in the figure, figure one is not adequate and not currently clear for the reader. Further elaboration is essential on the direction and movement regimes and also dynamics.
Reply: It has been revised according to the reviewer comments. See Figure 1 for the revised contents please.
Review opinion 2: One of the further major issues which should be addressed the validation of the simulation. Please elaborate on the simulation and add materials on the validation technique.
Reply: The description of the previous application of the model was added in Section 3.1 to illustrate this problem.
Review opinion 3: The relevance of the research to Sustainable Water Resources Management and Planning under Climate Change must be further highlighted in the introduction and also in the discussions.
Reply: According to the reviewers' opinions, the change of precipitation in the Yellow River Basin caused by climate change is simply added in the introduction part, so as to promote the increase of extreme precipitation process in the basin. This result has a great impact on the distribution of water and sediment in the basin, thus affecting the stability of river regime. The latter part of the article mainly focuses on the impact of water and sediment change on river regime stability.
Review opinion 4: Although the paper has appropriate length and informative content, several parts must be improved and written in better grammar and syntax. It would be essential if authors would consider revising the organization and composition of the manuscript, in terms of the definition/justification of the objectives, description of the method, the accomplishment of the objective, and results.
Reply: The language has been polished by a professional English polishing organization.
Review opinion 5: The paper is generally difficult to follow. Paragraphs and sentences are not well connected. Furthermore, I advise considering using standard keywords to better present the research.
Reply: The language has been polished by a professional English polishing organization, and making language easier to understand
Review opinion 6: Please revise the abstract according to the journal guideline. It must be under 200 words. The research question, method, and the results must be briefly communicated. The abstract must be more informative. I suggest having four paragraphs in the introduction for; describing the concept, research gap, contribution, and the organization of the paper. The motivation has the potential to be more elaborated. You may add materials on why doing this research is essential, and what this article would add to the current knowledge, etc.
Reply: According to the reviewers' opinions, the abstract has been revised and controlled within 200 words. The introduction has been divided into four paragraphs and has been revised.
Review opinion 7: The originality of the paper is not discussed well. The research question must be clearly given in the introduction, in addition to some words on the testable hypothesis. Please elaborate on the importance of this work. Please discuss if the paper suitable for broad international interest and applications or better suited for the local application? Elaborate and discuss this in the introduction.
Reply: This question has been revised in introduction and discussion respectively. See red font for details please.
Review opinion 8: State of the art needs improvement. A detailed description of the cited references is essential. Several recently published papers are not included in the review section. In fact, the acknowledgment of the past related work by others, in the reference list, is not sufficient. Consequently, the contribution of the paper is not clear. Furthermore, consider elaborating on the suitability of the paper and relevance to the journal. Kindly note that references cited must be up to date.
Reply: This question has been revised in discussion. See red font for details please.
Review opinion 9: Elaborate on the method used and why used this method.
Reply: Previous studies only used the method of model test, and only the qualitative impact of water and sediment conditions on river regime stability can be obtained. This study not only used the method of model test to study the qualitative impact of different water and sediment conditions on river regime stability in detail, but also based on natural measured water and sediment data and large section topographic data, established the relationship between flow and uplift and down-dip distance of river regime, and the relationship between the amplitude of scouring and silting of the channel and uplift and down-dip distance of river regime, so as to construct the quantitative calculation method of water and sediment dynamic conditions on the stability of the river regime, which can provide a certain reference for the hydrological workers in the front line, quantitatively estimate the approximate trend of the river regime according to the possible water and sediment inflow conditions. Which can provide a certain scientific basis for river flood control and early warning, and can provide a certain reference for the quantitative study of river regime stability of other rivers at home and abroad.
Review opinion 10: Limitations and validation are not discussed adequately. The research question and hypothesis must be answered and discussed clearly in the discussion and conclusions. Please communicate the future research. The lessons learned must be further elaborated in the conclusion by discussing the results to the community and the future impacts. What is your perspective on future research?
Reply: According to the comments of the reviewer, this issue has been discussed in detail in the section 3.3 (1).
Thank you again for your guidance on this article!
Best wishes
Linjuan Xu
December 9, 2021
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I have read your manuscript and find it a valuable contribution. I think the research design and the data you presented are high quality and sensible, but I don't think you used the potential of your work actually offer to be more globally impactful. I think in the introduction you need to be more explicit with few parameters (marked in the provided PDF) and the discussion needs significant upgrade. I really missed some sections in the discussion which shows what we learned or could learn from your work and how that could compare with other river management works elsewhere. Such addition is not only expand the potential readership of your work but also would increase its impact.
I have provided and annotated PDF where you can see my comments. I think a minor revision could fix all these shortcoming of your manuscript.
Kind regards,
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank you very much for your advice and guidance on this paper, which has benefited me a lot. The following are the changes made to this article based on reviewer comments, all of which have been highlighted in red.
Review opinion 1: line 13-15: hard to follow sentence, pls rewrite it or break it into two short but clear sentences
Reply: This sentence has been amended.
Review opinion 2: line 18-24: this is again a very convoluted and hard to understand sentences. In the abstract such complex and not clear sentences are not really good to have.
Reply: This sentence has been amended.
Review opinion 3: line 24: what are those long-term effects?
Reply: Long-term effects have been added to abstract: In the long run, which will cause abnormal river regime, even cause unstable river regime and seriously threaten the safety of river flood control.
Review opinion 4: line 34: the sentence could be understood in many different way, like sediment type, sediment accumulation rate, sediment accumulation spatial pattern sediment layer surface roughness etc. Maybe just be more specific here.
Reply: According to the opinions of other reviewers, this sentence has been deleted from the article.
Review opinion 5: line 46: maybe add a short definition to this what exactly you mean by engineering boundary
Reply: This part has been modified. Please see the Chinese red character section for details: Due to the different combinations of water and sediment conditions (the amount and process of water and sediment entering the downstream in a given period of time), riverbed boundary (i.e., plane shape, section shape, longitudinal gradient, riverbed material composition and scour resistance, beach trough height difference, etc) and engineering boundary (i.e., project length, layout, spacing, etc),….
Review opinion 6: line 48: list some unique conditions you refer to here
Reply: This part has been modified. Please see the Chinese red character section for details: Take the Yellow River for example, its unique conditions of incoming water and sediment, such as less water and more sediment, uneven temporal and spatial distribution of water and sediment and different sources of water and sediment,….
Review opinion 7: line 51: such as, again, make clear your understandings to the reader
Reply: This part has been modified. Please see the Chinese red character section for details: Favorable conditions of water and sediment, such as the year with abundant water and little sediment,…..
Review opinion 8: line 57: maybe add a data in brackets, something like from xxx in 1960 to zzz in 2021
Reply: This part has been modified. Please see the Chinese red character section for details: From 1951 to 2018, the annual average temperature of the whole basin increased by 1.39 ℃, while the regional average annual precipitation decreased by 10mm. Specifically, the annual precipitation in the upper reaches of the Yellow River has an obvious increasing trend, while the middle and lower reaches have an obvious decreasing trend, that is to say, the extreme precipitation process in the Yellow River Basin tends to increase.
Review opinion 9: line 124: cite your map figure here and don’t forget to mark these mentioned locations
Reply: These locations have marked in Figure 1.
Review opinion 10: line 128: maybe add value range in brackets
Reply: Value range in brackets has already added. Please see the Chinese red character section for details: With a small channel elevation difference (about 0.26~2.11m)
Review opinion 11: line 130: cite your map figure and show these locations on it
Reply: These locations have marked in Figure 1.
Review opinion 12: line 142: add a zebra frame with the coordinates on it, also mention the DEM (topo) data source in the figure caption as well as the software your map/GIS was performed
Reply: All of these have marked in Figure 1
Review opinion 13: line 142: check the elevation table, this looks to me too high. Also use equal values, like 0, 200, 400, 600 ...
Reply: All of these have marked in Figure 1
Review opinion 14: line 142: add scale to this map frame also
Reply: The scale has added in Figure 1.
Review opinion 15: line 285: no need capital letter
Reply: The letters have been changed to lowercase letters.
Review opinion 16: line 365: I think it is really interesting what you demonstrated in your work, but somehow it has not been connected and put into a broader context. I think you have enough good data from your research to formulate some sort of recommendation for river management and/or some known issues in the past to explain with your findings. I think a more robust discussion would help to put our work into a global context and that would elevate your work to be a higher impact research.
Reply: Thank you very much for your recognition and liking of this article. Due to space limitations, some of the content cannot be expanded into details, I hope to explain in detail in other articles in the future. or what the experts are interested in that I haven't discovered yet. But I've done my best to express what I've done so far. Thank you again for your support of this article
Review opinion 17: line 415: please note MDPI requires DOI numbers as much as you can gather
Reply: The DOI of these references has been added.
Thank you again for your guidance on this article!
Best wishes
Linjuan Xu
December 9, 2021
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
- My previous comment (Is your research completely problem-free? There should be a section in the manuscript on the limitations and uncertainties of your study. Authors must be more critical of the findings.) remains without a correct answer. I didn’t ask you to write about what is innovative in your work. I asked you to write about the limitations and uncertainties of your research, i.e., in fact, about the "weaknesses" of your research. I am not satisfied with your answer in the revised manuscript.
- I still see disharmony in the title of your manuscript. I don't understand what "Uplift and Down-dip Distance of River Regime" means. Are you writing about the rise and fall phases of the river´s water levels/discharge? What kind of "Dynamic Change of Water and Sediment" are you writing about? Spatial, temporal, or spatiotemporal? Give a clear title for your manuscript!
Author Response
water-1485848
Manuscript modification instructions
Dear reviewers,
Thank you very much for your advice and guidance on this paper, which has benefited me a lot. The following are the changes made to this article based on reviewer comments, all of which have been highlighted in blue. (The red font is the first modification).
Review opinion 1: My previous comment (Is your research completely problem-free? There should be a section in the manuscript on the limitations and uncertainties of your study. Authors must be more critical of the findings.) remains without a correct answer. I didn’t ask you to write about what is innovative in your work. I asked you to write about the limitations and uncertainties of your research, i.e., in fact, about the "weaknesses" of your research. I am not satisfied with your answer in the revised manuscript.
Reply: This question has been described in Section 4.3 (4) of the discussion. Seeing the blue font modification in the text for details, the red font is the first modification. I think these two revisions should explain your problem. Thank you!
Review opinion 2: I still see disharmony in the title of your manuscript. I don't understand what "Uplift and Down-dip Distance of River Regime" means. Are you writing about the rise and fall phases of the river´s water levels/discharge? What kind of "Dynamic Change of Water and Sediment" are you writing about? Spatial, temporal, or spatiotemporal? Give a clear title for your manuscript!
Reply: According to the comments of reviewers, the title of the article is revised as follows: Response Relationship between the Upward or Downward Moving Distance of Main Stream Zone and Water and Sediment Conditions in Wandering Channel
Next, I'll introduce some Chinese names that involved in the paper. I haven't found any English proper names. Their English names are difficult to express. I'll introduce them in one sentence. I hope I explain it clearly this time, thank you!
Fig.1 Sketch map
In Figure 1, A, B and C are the site where the main flow is close to the project or shoreline respectively; Ⅰ is the location of the top impact point of the main stream zone develops towards the upstream of the shoreline or project, Ⅱ is the location of the top impact point of the main stream zone develops towards the downstream of the shoreline or project; Taking A as the reference point, m is the upward moving distance of main stream zone, n is the downward moving distance of main stream zone.
着溜点 (in Chinese)：The site where the main flow is close to the project
河势上提 (in Chinese)：The location of the top impact point of the main stream zone develops towards the upstream of the shoreline or project
河势下挫 (in Chinese)：The location of the top impact point of the main stream zone develops towards the downstream of the shoreline or project
河势上提下挫距离 (in Chinese)：upward or downward moving distance of main stream zone
Thank you again for your guidance on this paper!
Best wishes
Linjuan Xu
December 13, 2021
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the revised version and your answers. Comments had been adequately addressed.
Author Response
Thank you very much！
