Reconstruction of Ancient Lake after Peat Excavation—A Case Study about Water Quality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Consider rewording the title “Reconstruction of Ancient Lake after Peat Excavation as a Way 2 of Water Resources Conservation in Rural Landscape” to Reconstruction of an Ancient Lake after Peat Excavation for Water Resources Conservation in a Rural Landscape
2. Line 17 “quality of water” change to “water quality”
3. Line 47, are lakes also potential water source for industrial use or drinking water?
4. Lines 68 to 79. The description is OK, but a simple stratigraphic column would be better to explain the geology.
5. Line 87, please refer to the drawing when discussing area A and others.
6. Table 1 column heading should be “Maximum”
7. Perhaps this is another study but is there information on the amount of surface water inflow and groundwater recharge to the lake? This would be part of the criteria for estimating the uses that could be supported.
8. Table 5 should indicate units of measure mg/L
9. Figure 3,4 and 5 would benefit from some additional explanation of how they show relationships or lack of relationships among the variables. I think many readers may have difficulty understanding what these figures show.
10. Section 4.3 on Fish population. If there is data from a fish and aquatic biology survey, please summarize and present in a data table.
11. Line 389, conclusion 2, if there is data on water table elevation, please describe or plot on a map if possible. Is it higher, lower or similar to pre-mining conditions?
12. Useful case study for similar post mining settings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Your paper presents an interesting approach in the restoration of excavation sites and the results of this process. I find interesting, a successful application with clear results.

Just a few point I would like to rise are the following:

L 45-46 rephrase

L 51-52 this looks like half a sentence

In the “study site” section it would be much better to put a map to show where the area is. Also, some local characteristics can be shown in the maps (e.g. land use, river networks, the location of the peat lakes etc.)

Table 1, “Maksimum” needs to be corrected, find a way to make clearer that you are using the median number for pH

L 309 in “the” rest of periods

Table 5 put respected units in each parameter

L 375 and 379 fill the century numbers

The information given about the study area is sufficient for the reader

In the “Water level fluctuations” you just mention the way the measurement of water level was made. This could be excluded. Also, it is not clear whether that gauge is fixed somewhere or it is a portable one, because this could introduce some ambiguity to the level measurements.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

General

The subject looks really very interesting. However, in the Reviewer understanding, the manuscript seems that should be revised as a Case Study. Also, the manuscript title does not seem to fully reflect the manuscript contents. Between many possible solutions, the Title could be, for example, “Reconstruction of Ancient Lake after Peat Excavation - A case study about Water Quality”, or similar. In fact, with the current Title: “Reconstruction of Ancient Lake after Peat Excavation as a Way of Water Resources Conservation in Rural Landscape”, it should be expected that a detailed analysis of climatic and/or meteorological variables and water balances in the lake would be performed, alongside to water demands or water volumes requirements that justify the storage and the mentioned conservation. 

The written text and some messages do not seem totally clear. Some parts of the manuscript seem relatively hard to read. The general presentation of the contents and the written language seems that can and must be substantively improved. Punctuation and grammar should be thoroughly checked and corrected, whenever it is the case. At least, the support of a competent professional proofreading seems recommendable. The overall recommendation is that the manuscript requires between minor to moderate revisions.

Some Additional Specific Comments

Lines 68 to 80 – One or more references seems that need to be mentioned or cited here.

Lines 82 to 89 and Conclusions Section - It is not very common the notation that is used in the manuscript for numbering the different items: “1/, 2/, 3/ …”

Lines 161 to 166 and Table 3 – It is not clear what is the difference and the intended meaning of “direct watershed” and “total watershed”.

Lines 227-232 – It is written: “Dominant communities were Phragmitetum (11 areas), Caricetum ripariae (4 areas) and Caricetum acutiformis (in one site), all characteristic for eutrophied waters. Most frequent plants identified in reservoir were reeds (Phragmites australis), Carex riparia, Carex acutiformis, Typha latifolia, Polygonum amphibium and Equisetum palustre. They are tolerant both for low and high concentrations of trophic substances, but generally prefer eutrophied waters.” With “eutrophied waters” is intended to mean polluted waters (due to eutrophication phenomenon)? Is this compatible with the water quality characteristics that are affirmed or intended for the lake. In Lines 366 to 369, for example, it is written: “Water quality parameters presented in paper were appropriate for cyprinids (carp, grass carp, crucian carp, roach, bleak) (Table 4) and this situation seem to be secure for next year’s due to stable water level, good water quality and limited trophic pressure from watershed [9].”

Lines 256-257 – Table 4 - It is written: “Table 4. Water quality parameters (mean values) for estimation of usefulness of reservoir for living of cyprinids fish species in the years 2013-2014.” And in Lines 307-308:” The concentration of nitrites and the value of BOD-5 were high in post-peat reservoir, but not exceed the needs of carps (Table 4).” How were exactly obtained/calculated the data that are presented in Table 4? Were they estimated based on simple average of the punctual measurements of the local samples? Also, Table 4 appears in page 7 and is only mentioned for the first time in page 8 (line 308).

Lines 350 - 351 and Table 5 – It is written: “Table 5. Differences between average annual values for the distinguished experimental objects and the general mean values.” Units of the variables of Table 5 seem missing. With “differences” it is intended to mean absolute differences?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx