Impacts of Flood Disturbance on the Dynamics of Basin-Scale Swimming Fish Migration in Mountainous Streams
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Editor in Chief
Thank you for providing an opportunity to review article for your Journal. Article water-1572644 is an interesting study which can be considered for publication after suggested modifications.
Abstract
Background information, results and discussion and way forward need to be in systematic order.
Introduction
Introduction is weak in present form, add recent literature review to strengthen the background of study undertaken.
Material and Methods
Avoid grammatical mistakes.
Results
Abbreviation must be consistent.
Keep un-necessary details.
Discussion
Discussion is much weak, need to strengthen based on results.
Author Response
MS: WATER-1572644
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
We are submitting a revised version of our manuscript (manuscript number: water-1572644), which was originally submitted on January 11, 2022. We very much appreciate the helpful comments and suggestions by the reviewers. First, the figure revision due to data correction is reported, followed by the responses to the review comments.
Data correction and figure revision:
The unit of eDNA concentration shown in Figure 7 (in the revised manuscript, Figure 8) was incorrect and has been corrected. The revision of this figure does not affect the discussion of this paper.
The eDNA values shown in the original Figure 7 were the number of DNA copies in 4 ml of the final solution (total volume is 100 ml) for which PCR analysis was performed. If these values are taken as A, the following conversion was performed to convert A to the concentration B (copies/ml) of 1000 ml of the sampling water. B = A × (100 / 4) / 1000
Abstract
Background information, results and discussion and way forward need to be in systematic order.
Response 1: Other reviewers have commented on the unclear content and structure of the abstract. We have included more specific information and results in the abstract.
Introduction
Introduction is weak in present form, add recent literature review to strengthen the background of study undertaken.
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. We have added a few points to the introduction to clarify the novelties and challenges of our research.
First of all, capturing the impacts of floods on the spatio-temporal distribution of fish population in mountainous river basins is a challenge in itself. (L38-45)
Second, the eDNA survey method has many advantages, but at the same time, its imperfections have been pointed out in reviews. We propose one approach to solve this problem is to combine the eDNA survey with a hydrological model for the entire river basin. this approach may be applicable to analyzing the impact of climate change and human activities on the resilience of river ecosystems. (L50-70)
Material and Methods
Avoid grammatical mistakes.
Response 3: We tried to improve the quality of our English and used high quality English editing service.
Results
Abbreviation must be consistent. Keep un-necessary details.
Response 4: We carefully revised the manuscript, but we were not sure what exactly was being pointed out. If there are still problems in the revised manuscript, please comment on the specific areas.
Discussion
Discussion is much weak, need to strengthen based on results.
Response 5: We have organized the discussion points and enhanced their parts. (L338-355)
The discussion part also touches on points such as the limitations of this research and how it contributes to the global context. (L356-364)
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This subject addressed is within the scope of the journal. However, the manuscript in the present version contains several problems. Appropriate revisions should be undertaken in order to justify recommendation for publication.
It is mentioned that RRI models are used. What are the advantages of adopting these particular methods over others in this case? How will this affect the results? More details should be furnished.- For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges, and your original achievements to overcome them, in a clearer way in abstract and introduction.
- There is a serious concern regarding the novelty of this work. What new has been proposed?
- Abstract needs to modify and to be revised to be quantitative. You can absorb readers' consideration by having some numerical results in this section.
- There are some occasional grammatical problems within the text. It may need the attention of someone fluent in English language to enhance the readability.
- The discussion section in the present form is relatively weak and should be strengthened with more details and justifications.
- In conclusion section, limitations and recommendations of this research should be highlighted.
- The authors have to add the state-of-the art references in the manuscripts.
-
It is mentioned that Nagara River basin is adopted as the case study. What are other feasible alternatives? What are the advantages of adopting this case study over others in this case? How will this affect the results? The authors should provide more details on this.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accepted
Reviewer 2 Report
The Authors have performed a good revision of their manuscript according to my concerns. The section "Discussion" has been extended and the omission of the section "Conclusions" might now be justified.
Consequently, I would recommend the acceptance of this paper.
