Next Article in Journal
Thinking about the Biodiversity Loss in This Changing World
Next Article in Special Issue
Editorial of Special Issue “Advances and Applications in Computational Geosciences”
Previous Article in Journal
An Age Scale for the First Shallow (Sub-)Antarctic Ice Core from Young Island, Northwest Ross Sea
Previous Article in Special Issue
Pilot Study Using ArcGIS Online to Enhance Students’ Learning Experience in Fieldwork
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Modelling of Nutrient Pollution Dynamics in River Basins: A Review with a Perspective of a Distributed Modelling Approach

Geosciences 2021, 11(9), 369; https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11090369
by Md Jahangir Alam 1,2,* and Dushmanta Dutta 3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Geosciences 2021, 11(9), 369; https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11090369
Submission received: 9 July 2021 / Revised: 22 August 2021 / Accepted: 25 August 2021 / Published: 1 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances and Applications in Computational Geosciences)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The objective of this paper was to review existing process-based models to simulate nutrient pollution dynamics and provide a future research direction. Overall, the quality of the article is good, and it can provide new information in the research field. However, there are a few minor issues that need to be addressed.

Page 1, lines 34-36: “The toxic algal bloom outbreak has increased in the Murray-Darling Rivers, the largest basin in Australia, which has vast socio-economic and environmental impacts (Hannam, 35 P, 2021).” This statement seems a little out of context. Please move this sentence further down the paragraph after the UK example (lines 43-44).

Page 4, lines 155-156: I noted that the authors cited Shrestha et al. 2006 to refer to the AnnAGNPS model. However, that is a model application model. Please provide the original citation (that describes the model development) for the AnnAGNPS model here?

Page 5, line 236: I noted a typo here. Please change “SAWAT” to “SWAT”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript presents a review of nonpoint source pollution models. I certainly think this manuscript fits the scope of journal very well and the manuscript itself is well organized. I have a couple of comments for the authors to consider to further improve this manuscript.

  1. Line 80-85: There have been a number of reviews in the literature that summarize and compare different NPS models. The authors made an attempt here to emphasize that they “highlighted the prospect of process-based modelling compared with others, particularly the capacity in determining the fate of nutrient in higher temporal and spatial resolution and dealing with climate change application.” I think this is a very important claim and the paper should be written to support this claim. However, I don’t see any discussion of “climate change application” in the section that describes the various types of models.
  2. Line 97: Not all the models in the paper (here and subsequent sections) are provided with their full names, which I think can be fairly easily resolved. They can be provided either in the tables or in the manuscript text where they are first mentioned.
  3. Line 65-68: Provide a few examples on such international/national organizations.
  4. Line 87: There are two section 1 in the manuscript. Make the 2nd one Section 2.
  5. Line 183-185: Does SPARROW involve these techniques? Please verify.
  6. Line 212: Why “the structure does not allow for future advancement”? This is unclear to me.
  7. Line 276: I encourage the authors to greatly expand this section “Research gap analysis over basin-scale modeling”. It will be a great service to the community.
  8. Section 3 and 4: I think these two sections can be merged to be a single section. Moreover, it is not clear to me why the authors chose to showcase this particular model (IISDHM). What’s the purpose?
  9. Line 336: Co-relation or correlation?
  10. Figure 4: There is no regression equation on the left panel. There is no unit for the y-axis on the right panel.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript substantially according to my previous comments. I don't have additional comments. 

Back to TopTop