Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor

After detailed readings in the manuscript, entitled: " Optimization of Synergistic Water Resources, Water Environment, and Water Ecology Remediation and Restoration Project: Application in the Jinshan Lake Basin ", it should be noted that synergistic water resources, the water environment, remediation, and ecological restoration of water, due to the need to develop an Intelligent Platform for Remediation and Optimization of Restoration Projects, integrating data fusion from multiple sources, an air-land-water coupled model, and dynamic decision optimization, are capable of supporting 3WRR in river basins. The results draw the reader's attention by revealing that source control alone (95% reduction in point and non-point loads) leads to limited improvement, achieving less than 2% compliance with Class IV water quality standards in tributaries, which would pique the curiosity of Journal readers.

Although it is a scientifically interesting manuscript, it needs major corrections before it can be published, such as:

1 - At the end of the “Abstract,” it is necessary to address the global impotence of the manuscript on a global scale, which would arouse greater interest among readers of the Journal.

2 - Note the existence of keywords and the presence of terms identical to the title. This should be reviewed; the idea is to include broader terms.

3 - In the introduction, on page 2, lines 50 to 53, there is a lack of references to support the statements made.

4 - It is necessary to improve the resolution of Figure 3, enabling better visualization of the objects.

5 - Before the title: “2. Intelligent Remediation and Restoration Platform Project Optimization,” it should be made clear that this is a methodology.

6 - Item “2.3 Model Copling” needs citations to support the method.

7 - On page 8, line 263, check that the figure has been cited correctly in the text.

8 - Need to discuss the results further with a larger number of bibliographic references.

9 - In the “Conclusions,” I suggest you address the possibility of future studies in more detail.

Author Response

1.1 Comment No.1：At the end of the “Abstract,” it is necessary to address the global impotence of the manuscript on a global scale, which would arouse greater interest among readers of the Journal.

Response:Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have reorganized the relevant content as follows:“These findings provide a replicable and data-driven paradigm for 3WRR implementation in complex river–lake systems. The platform’s application and promotion in other watersheds worldwide will serve to enable the low-cost and high-efficiency management of watershed water environments.”

 

1.2 Comment No.2：Note the existence of keywords and the presence of terms identical to the title. This should be reviewed; the idea is to include broader terms.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The keywords that duplicate with the title have been modified.

 

1.3 Comment No.3：In the introduction, on page 2, lines 50 to 53, there is a lack of references to support the statements made.

Response:Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have added references at the appropriate positions to support the statements in this section.

 

1.4 Comment No.4：It is necessary to improve the resolution of Figure 3, enabling better visualization of the objects.

Response:Thank you for your suggestion. The clarity of Figure 3 has been improved.

 

1.5 Comment No.5：Before the title: “2. Intelligent Remediation and Restoration Platform Project Optimization,” it should be made clear that this is a methodology.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The title 2 has been revised.

 

1.6 Comment No.6：Item “2.3 Model Copling” needs citations to support the method.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have supplemented the references at the appropriate locations within the article.

 

1.7 Comment No.7：On page 8, line 263, check that the figure has been cited correctly in the text.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Figure 6 illustrates the spatiotemporal variations in water quality indicators under different scenarios, examining the spatial distribution of pollution under engineering and ecological interventions. It serves as a demonstration of the effectiveness of various management strategies,so the figure has been cited correctly in the text.

 

1.8 Comment No.8：Need to discuss the results further with a larger number of bibliographic references.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have reorganized the relevant content as follows: “Research on the Taihu River Basin has shown that relying solely on agricultural non-point source reduction has not significantly improved water quality. Even with a 40% reduction in non-point source load, the concentration of total phosphorus in the lake only decreased by 5–10%, as internal phosphorus release counteracted the external reduction efforts [46].” and “In Lake Erie, the spring snowmelt entering the wet season causes a sharp rise in TP concentration, triggering algal blooms. During the winter low-water period, a combination of artificial wetlands and sediment capping achieved a 70% reduction in TP. This approach is similar in effectiveness to the JLB strategy of sediment dredging and source control during dry years, but Lake Erie relies on physical capping rather than water supplementation [47].”

In Section 3.3.3, we have revised the entire section, incorporating mechanistic analysis and discussion.”

 

1.9 Comment No.9：In the “Conclusions,” I suggest you address the possibility of future studies in more detail.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have reorganized the relevant content as follows: “With the widespread adoption of cloud computing and AI technologies across various industries, the application costs of intelligent platforms in water environment remediation and restoration will be significantly reduced. Both computational accuracy and speed will experience substantial advancements, leading to the broader implementation of the integrated three-water model.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting, well-written manuscript that reports results from modeling of water quality changes in the tributaries of Jinshan Lake and the lake under a variety of potential scenarios. The figures suffer from text that is too small to read, but the figures themselves are appropriate and useful. Unfortunately the authors do not present any measured data with their model results and they provide no discussion of why different scenarios produce different outcomes.  I suspect that their model results are relatively robust and stable, but without discussion the study will not be much help in deciding how to implement one or more of these scenarios, which will have costs associated with them.  I suspect that actual data and discussion can be found in some of the studies the authors cite, and these can be used to support or constrain their model results. Two areas need special attention:

1. How do we know the model(s) work? I like the approach and much of what I read, but you include almost no discussion of the data produced by the integrated models.  How do you know that the models produce realistic values?  What aspects of the models/scenarios lead to different outcomes?  What measured data can  you supply as a basis for discussion? You need to look into this complex "black box" and work to explain why different scenarios produce divergent results.  At some point cost and disruption will be important factors in implementation of any scenario and you will need to be able to explain why it is important  to choose certain scenarios rather than simpler, lower cost alternatives.
2. Eutrofication—You need to explain your usage in a sentence or two, since you seem to use this parameter as a summary of effects. This word is often used to describe the state of a water body, referencing clarity, bloom frequency or algal density.  You seem to be using it as a descriptor of nutrient loading. Or does the index represent some actual field measurement of algal density? C-deposition?  Or is it some composite of the chemical indices? Are these measured or modeled values?

 

I have made numerous remarks, corrections, and suggestions in the margins of the .pdf, which I attach.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

2.1 Comment No.1：How do we know the model(s) work? I like the approach and much of what I read, but you include almost no discussion of the data produced by the integrated models.  How do you know that the models produce realistic values?  What aspects of the models/scenarios lead to different outcomes?  What measured data can  you supply as a basis for discussion? You need to look into this complex "black box" and work to explain why different scenarios produce divergent results.  At some point cost and disruption will be important factors in implementation of any scenario and you will need to be able to explain why it is important  to choose certain scenarios rather than simpler, lower cost alternatives.

Response:Thank you for your suggestion. For the section on how the model operates, reference can be made to the article published (Zhang et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022; Chen et al.,2023). We have added calibration verification to the reliability of the model in Section 3.2 Lines 232-236 as below:

“Model parameters were calibrated using remotely sensed water quality inversion results from August 2017 and December 2018. Validation was conducted against measured discharge data at hydrometric cross-sections and water quality monitoring data from January 2019, yielding relative errors of less than 5% for water quantity and within 15% for COD and TP, demonstrating satisfactory model accuracy [43,44].”

We would like to clarify that our model is not a "black box"; the decision optimization process is explicitly described in Section 2.4 Dynamic Decision Optimization. We detailed how the optimization model integrates real-time monitoring and satellite remote sensing data with simulated outcomes to assess whether water quantity, quality, and ecological conditions meet environmental standards. For water bodies failing to comply, the model incorporates spatiotemporal distribution features, watershed-specific conditions, and feasibility constraints to formulate tailored 3WRR projects—including hydraulic improvements, enhancement of water environmental carrying capacity, and eutrophication mitigation. The improvement effects of various project combinations are systematically simulated and evaluated. The expected variance ranking method is then applied to comprehensively prioritize and identify the optimal integrated management plan.

We have added operational descriptions for Jinshan Lake Basin Platform as shown in Lines 242-250:

“In the Jinshan Lake Basin Platform, tiered access permissions and customizable visualization interfaces are designed for different user levels. Once a user submits a request, the control center interprets it, retrieves the relevant data, and activates ap-propriate models to perform scenario-specific decision calculations. The selection of models, simulation extent, and time horizon are dynamically determined based on user inputs and situational requirements. Upon authorization and validation by authorized personnel, the platform delivers application results (simulation outputs and optimiza-tion suggestions) directly to the client. The decision support platform for 3WRR in the Jinshan Lake Basin is shown in Fig.4..”

In this study, the outcomes of the platform include the simulation results of the model, as well as the analysis and evaluation indicators for different scenarios decision-making, including: the number of days meeting water quality standards as a proportion of the year (compliance rate by time), the areal proportion of the waterbody achieving compliance (compliance rate by space), and eutrophication index. To facilitate comparative discussion across different scenarios, the results are primarily presented in the form of compliance rates for clarity and consistency. Furthermore, the spatiotemporal variation in simulated concentrations of COD, NH₃-N, and TP are visually detailed in Fig. 6-8 which illustrate their spatial distribution and temporal process across the basin. Additionally, Fig. 10 provided the simulated annual time-series process of COD, NH₃-N, and TP at representative monitoring sections, offering further insight into the dynamic behavior of water quality under various intervention scenarios. These results form the basis for our quantitative evaluation and optimal strategy selection. We have added and modified the discussions about scenario analysis as shown in 3.3.3.

 

2.2 Comment No.2：Eutrofication—You need to explain your usage in a sentence or two, since you seem to use this parameter as a summary of effects. This word is often used to describe the state of a water body, referencing clarity, bloom frequency or algal density.  You seem to be using it as a descriptor of nutrient loading. Or does the index represent some actual field measurement of algal density? C-deposition?  Or is it some composite of the chemical indices? Are these measured or modeled values?

Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have reorganized the relevant content as follows: “ The eutrophication index is commonly used to assess the nutrient levels in water bodies. In this study, the evaluation factors include three water quality indicators: COD, NH₃-N, and TP [39]. The eutrophication index is used as one of the indicators for the ecological risk assessment of the Jinshan Lake basin. The effectiveness of different management strategies provided by the platform is evaluated in order to identify the most suitable management plan for the Jinshan Lake basin.”

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors present interesting and up-to-date subject of synergistic water resources, water environment, water ecology remediation and restoration. The proposed platform allows for integrated management and optimization of the watershed.

However, there are some aspects that have to be improved in the proposed research, as follows:

• The methodological approach misses important aspect, such as surface water/groundwater interactions. It is only mentioned in the literature review, but it is absent in the coupling approach. The holistic approach to the watershed cannot ignore the fact, that most of the rivers and lakes get constantly significant proportion of water load from the groundwater. The share of groundwater inflow varies in time. In wet seasons it may be minimal or even groundwater may be fed by surface water during very high level of surface water. During longer dry periods the water present in surface water streams may come entirely from groundwater. It means, that even if the surface water is treated in shorter perspective, the inflow of still contaminated groundwater may be a problem in longer perspective. Therefore, the quality of groundwater cannot be separated from the quality of surface water. The holistic watershed approach has to take groundwater into consideration and groundwater/surface water interaction has to be addressed.
• The concept for visualization of the results has to be reconsidered, as at present they are extremely hard to follow and to understand. Most figures showing the results, in particular figures: 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12 present numerous graphs with unreadable values on both vertical and horizontal axis.
• There are several minor editing issues, listed below:

Line 52: are combined formulate --> are combined to formulate

Line 91: andenhancing --> and enhancing

Line 159: 2.3 Model Copling --> 2.3 Model Coupling

Line 160: 3WRR decision-making model system in a consists of… --> 3WRR decision-making model system consists of…

 

Best regards,

Reviewer

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have not checked the English (it is overall OK for me as non-native speaker) but there are some grammar/editing issues I found while reading. I have listed them under point 3 of the Suggestions for Authors. 

Author Response

3.1 Comment No.1：The methodological approach misses important aspect, such as surface water/groundwater interactions. It is only mentioned in the literature review, but it is absent in the coupling approach. The holistic approach to the watershed cannot ignore the fact, that most of the rivers and lakes get constantly significant proportion of water load from the groundwater. The share of groundwater inflow varies in time. In wet seasons it may be minimal or even groundwater may be fed by surface water during very high level of surface water. During longer dry periods the water present in surface water streams may come entirely from groundwater. It means, that even if the surface water is treated in shorter perspective, the inflow of still contaminated groundwater may be a problem in longer perspective. Therefore, the quality of groundwater cannot be separated from the quality of surface water. The holistic watershed approach has to take groundwater into consideration and groundwater/surface water interaction has to be addressed.

Response:Thank you for your suggestion. This model considers the influence of groundwater, where the pavement units and the one-dimensional river network in the model engage in surface water-groundwater interactions. However, since the Jinshan Lake Basin is an urban surface type, the natural permeable layer is replaced by an impermeable layer in urban surfaces, fundamentally obstructing the vertical path of the water cycle. Therefore, the impact of surface water-groundwater interactions is relatively small in the Jinshan Lake Basin.

 

3.2 Comment No.2：The concept for visualization of the results has to be reconsidered, as at present they are extremely hard to follow and to understand. Most figures showing the results, in particular figures: 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12 present numerous graphs with unreadable values on both vertical and horizontal axis.

Response:Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have updated all the figures you mentioned to ensure their visibility.

 

3.3 Comment No.3

There are several minor editing issues, listed below:

Line 52: are combined formulate --> are combined to formulate

Line 91: andenhancing --> and enhancing

Line 159: 2.3 Model Copling --> 2.3 Model Coupling

Line 160: 3WRR decision-making model system in a consists of… --> 3WRR decision-making model system consists of…

Response:Thank you for your valuable feedback. The syntax issues have all been revised.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor
The authors have done a good job. All my recommendations have been addressed. I suggest ACCEPTING the manuscript for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The well-written, revised manuscript reports results from modeling of water quality changes in the tributaries of Jinshan Lake (China) and the lake under a variety of potential scenarios. The authors have made systematic changes to address this reviewer’s concerns about the first version of the manuscript. The authors still need to better define and explain the water quality standard(s) that they are using as a basis for evaluating model performance for different scenarios. In addition to several relatively minor issues I have noted with the figures and the text, this is the only area that I believe requires additional work. I have added a number of corrections, marginal notes, and a few queries/suggestions in the .pdf form of the manuscript, which I am attaching.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

2.1 Comment No.1：The authors still need to better define and explain the water quality standard(s) that they are using as a basis for evaluating model performance for different scenarios.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have reorganized the relevant content as follows:“The Class IV water standard, as defined by China's Surface Water Environmental Quality Standards (GB 3838-2002), primarily applies to areas designated for general industrial use and recreational waters where direct human contact is not expected. The water quality parameters include, for example, COD ≤ 20 mg/L and ammonia nitrogen (NH₃-N) ≤ 1.5 mg/L.”and “Only when the water meets the Class IV water standard can normal aquatic biological activities, human activities, and industrial operations be carried out. This study evaluates the effectiveness of various restoration strategies based on the number of days the water quality in the Jinshan Lake watershed meets Class IV standards.”

 

2.2 Comment No.2：In addition to several relatively minor issues I have noted with the figures and the text, this is the only area that I believe requires additional work. I have added a number of corrections, marginal notes, and a few queries/suggestions in the .pdf form of the manuscript, which I am attaching.

Response:

1. put the Class four standards description here somewhere.

We have reorganized the relevant content as follows: “The Class IV water standard, as defined by China's Surface Water Environmental Quality Standards (GB 3838-2002), primarily applies to areas designated for general industrial use and recreational waters where direct human contact is not expected. The water quality parameters include, for example, COD ≤ 20 mg/L and ammonia nitrogen (NH₃-N) ≤ 1.5 mg/L.”

2. First mention and description should be in introduction-- the standards are not results!

We have already addressed the Class IV water standard in the previous question.

3. Do these two sampling periods thus include "typical" wet and dry conditions.If so ,say so,...so the reader knows that...

We have reorganized the relevant content as follows:“The data collected during the sampling period is categorized into three types: wet (P10), normal (P50), and dry (P90).”

4. Good idea-- make it legible

Fig. 4 has been updated to ensure readability.

5. Here you mean Fig.5;make sure the final form of figure 4 is both legible and translated,as much as possible-- needs...

Thank you very much. The figure numbers here have been updated.

6. This would be for a 365 day year?IE values are annual?

Yes, the data presented here represents the number of days within a year that meet the Class IV water standard under different restoration scenarios. The EI formula is expressed as: EI=∑[Wj×TLI(j)],Where: j represents the individual parameters involved in the evaluation, including: chlorophyll-a (Chl-a), total phosphorus (TP), total nitrogen (TN), Secchi disk depth (SD), and permanganate index (CODMn).

7. Do you mean from sediment/

The main sources of phosphorus release include: chemical release under hypoxic conditions, biological disturbance, microbial degradation, and changes in pH levels.

8. Are all of these model results or are there some measured data (Chla a)? that might confirm that the combined models are providing correct values?

At the initial stage of the platform development, we calibrated and validated several key parameters to ensure the accuracy of subsequent results.

9. in North America??

Yes. This case is compared with the restoration plan of JLB to enhance the persuasive power of the article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for including my minor remarks and for improving the visibility of figures. Thank you also for explaining your approach to groundwater/surface water interactions in the reply to my comment. Well, looking at aerial image of Jinshan Lake and its suroundings I do not believe that the permeability of the first layer is so low that you may disregard the groundwater/surface water interacion in such holistic approach that you propose, even if the permeability is surely reduced in urban environment.  It is very important not to underestimate of the inflow of contaminants to the streams and lakes from groundwater, as it may impede the long-term sustainability of remediation activities. Sediment dredging also leads to increase of the interaction between groundwater and surface water unless the banks and bottom of surface water body is fully channelized. Looking at the aerial photo of your research area I do not think that the surface water is fully channelized.

Anyway, it is a bare minimum to include clear reference to the approach of your proposed model to groundwater/surface water interactions in the methodology section and in the discussion of your results. You have to clearly explain why you neglect grounwater/surface water interaction, justify this approach by some data on the permeability of Jinshan Lake surroundings referring to both degree of surface isolation and degree of channelizing of surface water banks and bottom. It is also necessary to underline that your approach is tailored to the settings where groundwater is fully isolated from surface water. This restrictions have to be also underlined in the conclusions and discussion sections. All this have to be included into text of your manuscript, as explaining it in the reply to my review is not enough.

 

Best regards,

Your Reviewer

Author Response

See the document for the reply content.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for including my comments,

Best regards,

Your Reviewer