Hydrology and Nutrient Dynamics in Managed Restored Wetlands of California’s Central Valley, USA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have few review comments (below) which should be addressed if the paper is revised.

I don’t see (A) and (B) markings in Figure 2.

I am wondering why evapotranspiration loss has not sketched (top) with an arrow from the "semi-permanent" and "seasonal" effect boxes. I see the evapotranspiration is from the “permanent” box only. Please explain why is it so, otherwise revise the sketch.

Why “snowpack” doesn’t contribute flow to rivers/streams per Figure 2 (bottom) with an arrow. See the text in line 402.

Figure 4. Label (2019-2020) on the plot

Although it is hard to distinguish mean values of TN and NO3-N in Figure 5, it seems the mean NO3-N is more than the mean of TN (SANinflow). NH4-N will further add mean to the total nitrogen. Check the values.

Define delta t in Eqn. 1

Why data presented in Figure 6 didn’t include data in the year 2019. Explain

Evapotranspiration losses due to seasonal effects could be significant and this effect should be elaborated.

Line 307 describes T23.3 which is not shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8 includes some water quality parameters which are not discussed in the text (such as, potassium, DO etc.).

Line 314: what water quality parameters are influenced by climate based on the Monte Carlo simulation?

Lines 343-347 are repetition.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 The paper Hydrology and Nutrient Dynamics in Managed Restored Wetlands of California’s Central Valley, USA. Overall, the paper is written well, however, few comments should be considered before accepting the paper for publication.

Page 1, lines 29-33. This paragraph needs to rewrite. Also, please add reference.

-        Same comment for the paragraph lines 34-40.

-        The novelty of the study should be highlighted better in the last paragraph of introduction.

-        Line 85. Write the full word approximately.

-        Section 2.3 needs to improve.

-  The results of the study are floating. All results and discussion should be improved and compared with previous studies. It is not enough to report your results without comparing with previous results.

-        Conclusion should be summarized better. I suggest to write the main conclusion as bullets.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx