Sediment and Particulate 137Cs Budget Studies in Upa River Basin: History, Results, and Prospects
(This article belongs to the Section Soil-Sediment-Water Systems)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors explored the sediment and particulate 137Cs budget studies in Upa River basin. The research method of this paper is correct. However, a minor revision is required for the manuscript.There are some questions and suggestions in the paper for reference:
1. What is the main question addressed by this research?
2. Do you consider the topic relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?
3. It is suggested that the conclusion be further condensed.
Author Response
We are very grateful for the work made by reviewer. We hope that the new version of out manuscript will be more comprehensive and contain satisfying answer for established questions. We enlarged Introduction. To clarify our positions, we have following responses for following comments:
- What is the main question addressed by this research?
The main goal of this work to generalize results of previous separate investigations in one of the most contaminated after Chernobyl fallout river basin. During preparation and submission of this work it was difficult to clearly classify its type. It is too large for research paper because includes results of too many separate studies. Hence, we think it is closer to review paper but dedicated to the one specific object.
- Do you consider the topic relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?
Although, vast areas of the East-European Plain were contaminated after Chernobyl accident, the number of geomorphic studies using radiocesium technique remains comparably low (taking in mind that gamma-spectrometric detectors are coming more and more available). Unfortunately, such very detailed studies of sediment and particulate 137Cs budgets with relatively huge dataset is unique for Chernobyl-affected zone of the Central Russia, as well as in the other areas of Europe affected by Chernobyl-fallout . We suppose that such work is the best way to perform the real state of art and outline prospects for further investigations.
- It is suggested that the conclusion be further condensed.
We agree that conclusions looks rather large but we suppose that it will be better to include major details of the work in Conclusion. It will be easy for potential reader to look briefly the main results.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments to Author:
The sediment budget affords an effective conceptual framework for quantifying sediment mobilisation, transport, deposition and storage within, and sediment output from, a drainage basin. Vast areas of Europe were contaminated by the fallout of 137Cs and other radionuclides, as a result of the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Because of its close affinity with soil and sediment particles, the post-fallout redistribution and fate of 137Cs are closely associated with the processes of erosion and sediment transport. As a result, this radioisotope has been widely used as a tracer in soil erosion and sediment budget investigations.
In the last ten years, many manuscripts have been published dealing with solving these problems In the abstract and introduction, it must be indicated what is new in this manuscript in relation to the literature published so far. The manuscript is technically prepared according to the instructions of the Journal.
Some changes need to be addressed before the manuscript is considered for publication.
In general, I advise a minor revision of this manuscript.
Comment 1: The words that appear in the title of the manuscript should not be repeated in the keywords.
Comment 2: English must be refined throughout the manuscript. There are a large number of technical errors in the summary and text of the manuscript in connection with the writing of certain words, the use of articles, singular and plural words, as well as the correct use of tenses. It is necessary for the authors to correct the following errors:
page 1, line 9: delete conjunction and in front of especially.
page 1, line 20: change the word predominate to predominant.
page 1, line 20: delete article the in front of sediment. Correct this error throughout the text.
page 1, line 28: change the word labor-intensive to labour-intensive.
page 1, line 32: the word spatial–temporal is written with a hyphen.
page 2, line 63: The plural verb are does not appear to agree with the singular subject portion.
page 2, line 65: delete article the in front of gully.
page 2, line 91: change the word behavior to behaviour.
page 3, line 101: the proposal of should be deleted.
page 3, line 103: change the words plowing shafts to ploughing shafts. Consider replacing it with the British English spelling. Correct this error throughout the text.
page 3, line 109: Conjunction use may be incorrect here. Delete conjunction and in front of especially.
page 3, line 109: he valleys sides write as the sides of the valleys. The word valleys should use the genitive case.
page 4, line 170: change the word dark-gray to dark-grey.
page 4, line 179: change the word hot-spot to hot spot.
page 8, line 229: Authors have an unnecessary comma after word sites in a compound object. Consider removing it.
page 9, line 238: change the word analogs to analogues.
page 9, line 246: change the word modeling to modelling.
page 9, line 246: change the word labor-saving to labour-saving.
page 9, line 247: delete article the in front of erosion.
page 10, line 297: change the word particulate to particulate.
page 10, line 307: Conjunction and should be preceded by a comma, not a semicolon. Consider changing the punctuation or deleting the conjunction. Correct this error throughout the text.
page 10, line 307: change the word redeposited to re-deposited.
page 11, line 337: add the article the before last.
page 15, line 415: change the word subcatchments to sub-catchments.
page 19, line 579: preposition use may be incorrect here. Delete preposition of after considering.
page 22, line 693: perhaps authors should use technology instead of technical.
page 22, line 705: delete article the in front of radionuclide.
page 23, line 715: change the word behavior to behaviour. Consider replacing it with the British English spelling.
Correct the spelling of these words and check further in the text for similar errors.
Comment 3: section Introduction, There are many works with similar themes. Comparison is needed with other review manuscripts (best present in the table). Explain the advantages of the results versus the results of other authors used for the same purpose. In the section introduction must be indicated what is new in this manuscript in relation to the literature published so far. The novelty statement needs to be further clarified and stated in the introduction.
Comment 4: page 4, line 162 and page 5, line 188: In this manuscript, two subtitles are marked with the number 3. This should be corrected in the final version of the manuscript to be published.
Comment 5: Considering that it is a review article, more recent research must be included.
The literature must be updated. New references published in the last 5 years should be added. Most of the literature (25%) is between 20 and 30 years old, and 25% are older than 30 years. 18,3% is between 10 and 20 years old, 15% is between 10 and 20 years old, and only 12.5% have been published in the last 5 years.
Comment 6: section References, reference 102 is incomplete.
Comment 7: section References correct reference number 103.
Comment 8: The same significant digits should be used in the whole manuscript.
Author Response
We are very grateful for the work made by reviewer. We hope that the new version of out manuscript will be more comprehensive and suitable for publication.
Comment 1: The words that appear in the title of the manuscript should not be repeated in the keywords.
Response: Key words were corrected.
Comment 2: English must be refined throughout the manuscript. There are a large number of technical errors in the summary and text of the manuscript in connection with the writing of certain words, the use of articles, singular and plural words, as well as the correct use of tenses.It is necessary for the authors to correct the following errors:
page 1, line 9: delete conjunction and in front of especially.
page 1, line 20: change the word predominate to predominant.
page 1, line 20: delete article the in front of sediment. Correct this error throughout the text.
page 1, line 28: change the word labor-intensive to labour-intensive.
page 1, line 32: the word spatial–temporal is written with a hyphen.
page 2, line 63: The plural verb are does not appear to agree with the singular subject portion.
page 2, line 65: delete article the in front of gully.
page 2, line 91: change the word behavior to behaviour.
page 3, line 101: the proposal of should be deleted.
page 3, line 103: change the words plowing shafts to ploughing shafts. Consider replacing it with the British English spelling. Correct this error throughout the text.
page 3, line 109: Conjunction use may be incorrect here. Delete conjunction and in front of especially.
page 3, line 109: he valleys sides write as the sides of the valleys. The word valleys should use the genitive case.
page 4, line 170: change the word dark-gray to dark-grey.
page 4, line 179: change the word hot-spot to hot spot.
page 8, line 229: Authors have an unnecessary comma after word sites in a compound object. Consider removing it.
page 9, line 238: change the word analogs to analogues.
page 9, line 246: change the word modeling to modelling.
page 9, line 246: change the word labor-saving to labour-saving.
page 9, line 247: delete article the in front of erosion.
page 10, line 297: change the word particulate to particulate.
page 10, line 307: Conjunction and should be preceded by a comma, not a semicolon. Consider changing the punctuation or deleting the conjunction. Correct this error throughout the text.
page 10, line 307: change the word redeposited to re-deposited.
page 11, line 337: add the article the before last.
page 15, line 415: change the word subcatchments to sub-catchments.
page 19, line 579: preposition use may be incorrect here. Delete preposition of after considering.
page 22, line 693: perhaps authors should use technology instead of technical.
page 22, line 705: delete article the in front of radionuclide.
page 23, line 715: change the word behavior to behaviour. Consider replacing it with the British English spelling.
Correct the spelling of these words and check further in the text for similar errors.
Response: All corresponded corrections were made in the new manuscript. We apologize if spelling was confusing for reading.
Comment 3: section Introduction, There are many works with similar themes. Comparison is needed with other review manuscripts (best present in the table). Explain the advantages of the results versus the results of other authors used for the same purpose. In the section introduction must be indicated what is new in this manuscript in relation to the literature published so far. The novelty statement needs to be further clarified and stated in the introduction.
We agree that several reviews have been published in recent years concerning estimates of the sediment redistribution and the redistribution of caesium-137 and other radionuclides in various parts of the fluvial network. In terms of the lateral migration of radionuclides, such works are primarily devoted to areas contaminated after the Fukushima accident. Given the scale of such publications and the large number of articles included in these reviews, we believe that their analysis would unnecessarily expand the scope of this article. However, several paragraphs have been inserted into the Introduction, which provide a brief description of review articles on this topic. The second part of your comment seems to us important. Indeed, it is necessary to emphasize the features and uniqueness of the studies carried out in the basin of the river. Upa. We have included a section in the Introduction that discusses this issue.
Comment 4: page 4, line 162 and page 5, line 188: In this manuscript, two subtitles are marked with the number 3. This should be corrected in the final version of the manuscript to be published.
Response: Corrected
Comment 5: Considering that it is a review article, more recent research must be included.
The literature must be updated. New references published in the last 5 years should be added. Most of the literature (25%) is between 20 and 30 years old, and 25% are older than 30 years. 18,3% is between 10 and 20 years old, 15% is between 10 and 20 years old, and only 12.5% have been published in the last 5 years.
Response: We enlarged introduction and added new refences to the new version of the manuscript including reviews.
Comment 6: section References, reference 102 is incomplete.
Response: Corrected
Comment 7: section References correct reference number 103.
Response: Corrected
Comment 8: The same significant digits should be used in the whole manuscript
Response: We checked values given in the manuscript. We think it looks ok. If some particular mistake was observed and we missed it we are ready to fix it.
