Influence of Increased Freshwater Inflow on Nitrogen and Phosphorus Budgets in a Dynamic Subtropical Estuary, Barataria Basin, Louisiana

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

no.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is very well developed and presented. Some small details to improve:

* Line 135: Correct 2.1 to 2.2.

* Section 2.5.

I understand the values presented in Table 1 correspond to those described in 2.5. Please mark it explicitly and relate the value in the Table to the values in Figure 2.

* Section 3.1 Line 289:

It is mentioned that the performance of the model is evaluated over the whole domain, how is the information from the 26 WQ stations synthesized?, it is with an average?, please explain.

* Appendix B. I think the last paragraph of page 21 (lines 682-693) could

I think the  last paragraph of page 21 (lines 682-693) could be included (or instead the main idea) in the conclusions as it warns of some errors in the model that are important to keep in mind when drawing conclusions.

* Appendix B. Table B1 is cited in the text after the figures (B1to B4), so it is recommended to move it to the end or change the order of the citation in the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I am very impressed with the article presented for review. The introduction objectively addresses the researched problem, presents the possible potential of the researched area as well as possible weaknesses of the proposed solutions. Then, the scope of research and the model used to simulate the water quality were presented. The data for the analysis were collected for two years, so they represent a representative value. The added value is also the comparison with other ecosystems. The performed analysis allows us to understand to understand nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics in Barataria Basin where largescale diversions of Mississippi River water are planned.
However, the article needs a few corrections, mainly editorial:
1. There is no chapter 2.2, but there are two chapters 2.1. Please correct it.
2. In my opinion, figures B1, B2, B3 and B4 also need improvement. The version of these figures submitted for review is of poor quality, practically unsuitable for study.

The publication is a valuable source of information and forms the basis for further analyzes and implementation of new solutions.

Thank you for considering my opinion. I encourage the authors to continue working on improving the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Autors,

Very excellent article. Well prepared, informative and detailed. Easy to read and understand.

Since there are a lot of summaries in the article, the authors should review it carefully, and the first time they come across it, write the summaries in parentheses everywhere. Many are able to do this, but not everywhere.

The methodology lacks a description of how the Taylor and Target diagrams were created. What is the significance level?

The part of the methodology is missing - which should be used as a standard when evaluating the values of water quality indicators in laboratories.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf