The Spring to Coast Approach in Small-Scale Catchments and Adjacent Coastal Zone
, Katerina A. Bakalakou 1, Chrysoula Ntislidou 2, Dionissis Latinopoulos 1, Nikolaos Kokkos 3, Konstantinos Zachopoulos 3, Maria Zoidou 3, Anastasia Makri 3, Konstantinos Azis 3, Nena Ioannidou 1, Georgios Sylaios 3, Paraschos Melidis 3, Spyridon Ntougias 3, Ifigenia Kagalou 1 and Christos S. Akratos 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
It's an interesting topic, and it's the scope of the journal's papers
In abstract：
1. This is a very local study, I hope the author can start from the characteristics of the study area, rather than a broad topic
2. A quantitative description of the findings is much needed, rather than
3. The significance of the study is not well described, leaving readers with a sense of lack of urgency
In Introduction：
1. The beginning deviates from the subject of this study and gives a very broad topic, which should not be
2. There are many WQI and the author should explain in great detail the assumptions based on the construction process of these indexes, especially the reasons for choosing A and B in this study.
3. Authors should be very clear about the research goal, not hide it
In Materials and Methods
1. Figure 2 should be redone so that it conveys information more clearly
2. Should explain why the current observation station was chosen to observe water quality
In Results
1. River water quality status is not described in detail, which continues to be the basis of analysis
2. I think the structure of the this section is reorganized, which is an academic paper rather than a research report
In Discussion
This part should be strengthened to analyze the causes of the current state of water quality
Author Response
Response to the Reviewers’ comments
Reviewer 1
It's an interesting topic, and it's the scope of the journal's papers
We would like to thank reviewer 1 for his/her helpful comments.
In abstract:
- This is a very local study, I hope the author can start from the characteristics of the study area, rather than a broad topic
Response: The comment of reviewer 1 is correct. The manuscript was revised accordingly.
(See revised text: Lines 20-22).
- A quantitative description of the findings is much needed, rather than
Response: The comment of reviewer 1 is correct. The manuscript was revised accordingly.
(See revised text: Lines 28-29).
- The significance of the study is not well described, leaving readers with a sense of lack of urgency
Response: The comment of reviewer 1 is correct. The manuscript was revised accordingly.
(See revised text: Lines 31-33).
In Introduction:
- The beginning deviates from the subject of this study and gives a very broad topic, which should not be
Response: The comment of reviewer 1 is correct. The manuscript was revised accordingly.
(See revised text: Lines 62-72).
- There are many WQI and the author should explain in great detail the assumptions based on the construction process of these indexes, especially the reasons for choosing A and B in this study.
Response: The comment of reviewer 1 is correct. The manuscript was revised accordingly.
(See revised text: Lines 79-82 and 84-86).
- Authors should be very clear about the research goal, not hide it
Response: The comment of reviewer 1 is correct. The manuscript was revised accordingly.
(See revised text: Lines 104-109).
In Materials and Methods:
- Figure 2 should be redone so that it conveys information more clearly
Response: The comment of reviewer 1 is correct. Figure 2 was reproduced.
(See revised text: Figure 2)
- Should explain why the current observation station was chosen to observe water quality
Response: The comment of reviewer 1 is correct. Table 1 has been added that precisely describes the reason for selecting each sampling point.
(See revised text: Table 1)
In Results:
- River water quality status is not described in detail, which continues to be the basis of analysis
Response: The comment of reviewer 1 is correct. The manuscript was revised accordingly.
(See revised text: Lines 298-300, 308-309, 311-312, 321-323, 358-359, 364-366)
- I think the structure of the this section is reorganized, which is an academic paper rather than a research report
Response: The comment of reviewer 1 is correct. Nevertheless, the manuscript is an academic article that follows the structure we established in the methodology in Section 2: Material and Methods, in order to clearly present the monitoring results, firstly. The key findings of the monitoring results are later discussed in Discussion section.
In Discussion:
This part should be strengthened to analyze the causes of the current state of water quality
Response: The comment of reviewer 1 is correct. The manuscript was revised accordingly.
(See revised text: Lines 648-671)
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript is well-written and only occasionally displays a few ediroial weaknesses regarding English usage. the only moderate flaw fir the submission is that it is very long on results and relatively short on discussion. The Discussion section could easily be enhanced to more fully address the significance of the findings within the scientific sphere - both for water quality and riverine environments of the Mediterranean.
Minor edits include:
Line 32: Replace consists with is
Line 35: Replace "factor in" with "service for"
Line 42: Add (WFD) after Directive
Line 110: Change nearby to near
LIne 112: Add "also" after is
Line 126: Change at to during
Line 127: Change respectively) while... Seasons" with respectively). Not all sites were sampled in all seasons
Line 128 Replace approach with sample.
Line 160: Eliminate the
Line 176 Eliminate both the(s)
Line 374 and Table 5: The text uses the phrase "high" while the Table uses the phrase "EXCELLENT"
Figure 6: Uses a lot of "dead" space from 0 to +2 on the x-axis
Figure 9: Uses a lot of "dead" space between 4 and 8on the x-axis
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Acceptable with a few areas for improvement
Author Response
Reviewer 2
The manuscript is well-written and only occasionally displays a few ediroial weaknesses regarding English usage. the only moderate flaw fir the submission is that it is very long on results and relatively short on discussion. The Discussion section could easily be enhanced to more fully address the significance of the findings within the scientific sphere - both for water quality and riverine environments of the Mediterranean.
Response: We would like to thank reviewer 2 for his/her helpful comments. The manuscript was revised accordingly.
(See revised text: Lines 642-682)
Minor edits include:
- Line 32: Replace consists with is
Response: The comment of reviewer 2 is correct. The word “consists” is changed with “is”.
(See revised text: Line 38)
- Line 35: Replace "factor in" with "service for"
Response: The comment of reviewer 2 is correct. The word “factor in” is changed with “service for”.
(See revised text: Line 41)
- Line 42: Add (WFD) after Directive
Response: The comment of reviewer 2 is correct. The word “WFD” added.
(See revised text: Line 50)
- Line 110: Change nearby to near
Response: The comment of reviewer 2 is correct. The word “nearby” is changed with “near”.
(See revised text: Line 138)
- Line 112: Add "also" after is
Response: The comment of reviewer 2 is correct. The word “also” added.
(See revised text: Line 141)
- Line 126: Change at to during
Response: The comment of reviewer 2 is correct. The word “at” is changed with “during”.
(See revised text: Line 157)
- Line 127: Change respectively) while... Seasons" with respectively). Not all sites were sampled in all seasons
Response: The comment of reviewer 2 is correct. The sentence was separated.
(See revised text: Line 158)
- Line 128 Replace approach with sample.
Response: The comment of reviewer 2 is correct. The word “approach” is changed with “sample”.
(See revised text: Line 159)
- Line 160: Eliminate the
Response: The comment of reviewer 2 is correct. The word “the” omitted.
(See revised text: Line 194)
- Line 176 Eliminate both the(s)
Response: The comment of reviewer 2 is correct. The words “the” omitted.
(See revised text: Lines 209-210)
- Line 374 and Table 5: The text uses the phrase "high" while the Table uses the phrase "EXCELLENT"
Response: The comment of reviewer 2 is correct. The word “excellent” is changed with “High”.
(See revised text: Table 6 Line 415)
- Figure 6: Uses a lot of "dead" space from 0 to +2 on the x-axis
Response: The comment of reviewer 2 is correct. Figure was recreated it.
(See revised text: Figure 6 Line 515)
- Figure 9: Uses a lot of "dead" space between 4 and 8on the x-axis
Response: The comment of reviewer 2 is correct. Figure was recreated it.
(See revised text: Figure 9 Line 565)
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Accept in present form
