Response of Riverbed Shaping to a Flood Event in the Reach from Alar to Xinquman in the Mainstream of the Tarim River

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Peer Review Report
Summary
This paper examines how riverbed shaping responds to different flood processes in the Alar to Xinquman section of the Tarim River. By using MIKE 21 numerical modeling, the study explores how sediment load, flood volume, and peak flow influence erosion and deposition patterns. The key takeaway is that sediment load is the dominant factor in shaping the riverbed, while flood volume and peak flow play crucial roles in different stages of the flooding process. The findings contribute to a better understanding of sediment transport efficiency and offer valuable insights for flood regulation and river management strategies.
•    Some sentences are too long and complex, making the explanations harder to follow.
•    Sections with equations and figures (especially Sections 4.2 and 4.3) are dense and might be difficult for readers unfamiliar with the subject.
•    The paper does not address potential errors or assumptions made in the MIKE 21 model.
•    There’s no discussion on data resolution constraints or how uncertainties were managed.
•    The study relies entirely on MIKE 21, but there’s no mention of why this model was chosen over alternatives like HEC-RAS 2D or Delft3D.
•    While the paper does a great job analyzing one section of the Tarim River, it doesn’t explain whether these findings could be applied to other river systems.

 
Minor Comments
•    Some figures (e.g., Figures 6-9, 12-13) have low contrast, making details hard to see. Better labels and color adjustments would help.
•    A summary table with key results (rather than just figures) would make the findings easier to digest.
•    Some references (e.g., Wang et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2023) should be better integrated into the discussion rather than just listed.
•    Are there any more recent studies (post-2020) that could strengthen the literature review?
•    Some sentences feel wordy and repetitive.
•    Some figures lack clear citations in the text (e.g., Figure 3 should be explicitly referenced when flood categories are introduced).
 
Final Recommendation
 Major Revision Required – The research is solid, but the paper needs better writing clarity, a discussion on limitations, and a more balanced methodology section before it’s ready for publication.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Summary
This paper examines how riverbed shaping responds to different flood processes in the Alar to Xinquman section of the Tarim River. By using MIKE 21 numerical modeling, the study explores how sediment load, flood volume, and peak flow influence erosion and deposition patterns. The key takeaway is that sediment load is the dominant factor in shaping the riverbed, while flood volume and peak flow play crucial roles in different stages of the flooding process. The findings contribute to a better understanding of sediment transport efficiency and offer valuable insights for flood regulation and river management strategies.
•    Some sentences are too long and complex, making the explanations harder to follow.
•    Sections with equations and figures (especially Sections 4.2 and 4.3) are dense and might be difficult for readers unfamiliar with the subject.
•    The paper does not address potential errors or assumptions made in the MIKE 21 model.
•    There’s no discussion on data resolution constraints or how uncertainties were managed.
•    The study relies entirely on MIKE 21, but there’s no mention of why this model was chosen over alternatives like HEC-RAS 2D or Delft3D.
•    While the paper does a great job analyzing one section of the Tarim River, it doesn’t explain whether these findings could be applied to other river systems.

 
Minor Comments
•    Some figures (e.g., Figures 6-9, 12-13) have low contrast, making details hard to see. Better labels and color adjustments would help.
•    A summary table with key results (rather than just figures) would make the findings easier to digest.
•    Some references (e.g., Wang et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2023) should be better integrated into the discussion rather than just listed.
•    Are there any more recent studies (post-2020) that could strengthen the literature review?
•    Some sentences feel wordy and repetitive.
•    Some figures lack clear citations in the text (e.g., Figure 3 should be explicitly referenced when flood categories are introduced).
 
Final Recommendation
Major Revision Required – The research is solid, but the paper needs better writing clarity, a discussion on limitations, and a more balanced methodology section before it’s ready for publication.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the paper, spatial descriptors and physical phenomena should be used consistently. For example, terms like 'river section' and 'river reach'; terms "beach" and "floodplain"; and terms "erosion and deposition", "scouring and deposition" and "scouring and filling" should not be used interchangeably.
2. The authors should explain the rationale for selecting the six flood events, ensuring that each one demonstrates representative significance. The terms 'type' and 'category' are not appropriate substitutes for the term 'event' and should not be used interchangeably.
3. Section 3.3, the authors should present a comparison between the simulated results and measured data through figures to validate the model settings.
4. The authors should clarify the concept of sediment load and whether it serves as an inflow boundary condition. Additionally, they should discuss its relationship with flood volume and peak flow rate. If each flood event has the same inflow sediment load, they should evaluate whether this assumption is reasonable.
5. Eq. (2), U is the velocity instead of flow rate.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Several sentences contain unclear wording due to the use of awkward or inappropriate terms. For example, in the sentence 'This phenomenon is particularly pronounced in the main channel area,' the word 'pronounced' is not suitable; in the sentence 'To this end, the paper will control variables such as sediment load, total flood volume, and peak flow during floods,' the word 'control' is also inappropriate; in the phrase 'which has the most excellent scouring effect under low sediment load conditions,' the word 'excellent' is not suitable in this context, as it implies a positive expectation of scouring.

The authors are strongly encouraged to seek assistance from a professional editor to improve the English quality of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been totally improved by the authors and I can accept it in this current format.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English could be improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript has been significantly improved, and I will recommend it for publication in Water.