Influence of the Hanjiang River’s Inlet Sediment Decrease on Modern Sedimentation in the Underwater Delta

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript by Wang et al. presents charts data as well as ²¹⁰Pb dating and particle size analysis of columnar samples from the Hanjiang River delta to characterize the impacts of decreasing sediment flux from the river on the delta deposition. Overall, the MS is well-written, and presents an intriguing data set to discuss the sedimentary response of fluvial sediment flux changes. The paper subject is undoubtedly suitable for Applied Sciences, and I recommend the following revisions to the MS:

P2 L5: “210 Pb dating…” should be ²¹⁰Pb dating, please check the entire MS to make sure similar errors are corrected

P2 L9: “from rapid deposition to erosion”, why is it erosion rather than slow deposition?

P2 L15: “…caused the Hanjiang River to enter the sea” not sure if I understand this statement, could you pls rephrase it?

P3 L3: “15112 and 15113”, can you mark them on Figure 1? Does the grey sea chart area on Figure 1 include both 15112 and 15113?

P3 L4: “Shantou Port”, can you mark it on Figure 1?

P3 L17: “Hanjiang Estuary”, can you mark it on Figure 1?

P5 L17: “Rong River”, Rongjiang River in Figure 1?

P8 section 3.2, when you calculate the deposition rate and compare, why don’t you calculate the lower section and compare it with the upper section?

P10 section 3.3: consider using a figure to illustrate the information you’ve demonstrated in this section, for example, a simplified sedimentary log showing the sediment type and grain size variations, you may also label the deposition rate of different segments from Table 6 in this figure, could be more intuitive.

P17 L6: “Table 7” table 7 doesn’t include this capacity information.

P19 L1: “1980-1989, 1989-2012, and 2012-2016” these don’t make sense here in this sentence.

Figures 10, 11, 12: “left, right” should be upper, lower figure

 

just some minor typos, marked in the detailed review feedback

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review of the manuscript. Your comments are very professional and helpful to us. We have replied to every question and revised it in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article focused on the Hanjiang underwater delta and uses a combination of chart erosion, sedimentation decadal
evolution and sediment sample analysis to reveal the impact of Hanjiang inflowing sediment changes on Hanjiang underwater delta deposition.

In general the article need some improvement in the writing and presentation.; for example the results must be simplified and rewritten since the data are presented in tables.

Rewrite the discussion and withdraw the results from the discussion.

See some more comments in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The article focused on the Hanjiang underwater delta and uses a combination of chart erosion, sedimentation decadal
evolution and sediment sample analysis to reveal the impact of Hanjiang inflowing sediment changes on Hanjiang underwater delta deposition.

In general the article is difficult to read and very repetitive. Needs profund modifications in the struture ad writing.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review of the manuscript. Your comments are very professional and helpful to us. We have replied to every question and revised it in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The study of the Hanjiang River submerged delta is a moderate-scale and useful study of the effects of changes in the nearshore sediment accumulation/erosion rates as effects of interferences in the free flow of the river.  The changes in bathymetry are well documented (but the figures are small and difficult to interpret.  The trends in sediment grain size are adequate, but of limited number.  The lead-210 analyses of accumulation rates are suggestive of rates of accumulation, but many of the results are of low significance.  The results are logical, and supported by the interpretation of the data, but could be refined with more samples and clearer dating.  THe paper is well organized and well written, for the most part.  I have made a number of corrections to imprecise language and punctuation within the text, and summarized below.  In particular, there is a lack of complete proof-reading, especially noted in inconsistencies in superscripting of exponents and isotopic values, as well as a few poor choices of terms, also summarized below.  Overall the manuscript is publishable with a few corrections.  It should be of interest to local stakeholders, and a specialists in the field, especially in comparison to other large river submerged deltas.  This work does not explore innovative concepts, but is definitely an applied application.

P = page, Par = paragraph, L = line

Abstract

L 003-004 – misplaced modifiers: rewrite as “…chart analysis of evolution of erosion and deposition and analysis of sediment samples.”

L 014 – “fining”

P 2, Par 1, L 005 – format 210Pb with proper superscript .  Change here and throughout the manuscript.

P 3, Figure 1 – increase to full width available.  Identify “Shantou Port” on figure.

P 4, Par 2.2.3. – 1, L 005 – replace “were excelling” with “exceeded”

         -2, “Udden-Wentworth”  note spelling is N not H

P 5, Par 2, L 1 – “silting” is an imprecise, non-scientific term, and your sediments are a variable mix of sand, silt and clay.  At least for the first time state as “accumulation (“silting”)”.

    L. 2 – superscript form for 10^7

    Par 4, L 5 – remove period after “Figure” – change throughout document.

P 7 – move Figure 2 to p. 6, closer to the text description.  The figure is hard to read – increase to maximum size available.

    Par 1 title: specify ^210Pb dating, no space, and again be sure to superscript the isotope number.

P 9 – Locations ZZY51 and ZZY55 have low confidence levels – are they significant?

P 10 – same question for ZZY04, plus explain why you show two different ranges of data.

P 11 – Table 6 – “Roughening position” is very unclear.  Do you me “Coarsening trend”?

P 12 – Discussion, Par 2, L 3 – add apostrophe to “1950’s”

    L 5 – be consistent in adding spaces in “317 ± 54” and “145 ± 25”

    L 16 -18 – superscripts

    Table 7 – spaces before and after “±”, as in comment for Line 5.

P 14 – Figure 8 – increase to full width available,  Identify “Shantou Port”

P 15 – Figure 9 – same comments as Figure 8.

    Par 1 and 2 – several locations, require apostrophes for 1990’s, 2000’s, 1950’s etc.

   Par 2 – remove periods after Figure 11 and Figure 12 in text.

P 16 – Figure 10 – lower panel overlaps the x-axis labels for upper captions for figure 10 , 11 and 12 refer to “left” and “right” – not consistent with display.

P 17, Par 1 – superscripts for m^3.  Also, elsewhere in the document you have used scientific notation rather than “million” and “billion” – be consistent.

    Last line – “1980’s”

 

P 18, L 22 – “km^2” superscript

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Please see the comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review of the manuscript. Your comments are very professional and helpful to us. We have replied to every question and revised it in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I have gone through the MS, I do not find any exciting results in this paper, however, we may consider after following changes;

- The research topic seems more specific and needs to change 

- Data collection methods are not clear (need more justification) 

- This work has not any solid significance whereas previously publishes articles. 

For more find an annotated PDF 

Good Luck 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English language need to improve well 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review of the manuscript. Your comments are very professional and helpful to us. We have replied to every question and revised it in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors has followed the previously recommendations and improved the english.

 Accept in the present form.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review of the manuscript. Your suggestions provide a very important help for us to modify and improve the quality of the manuscript. We will pay attention to the problems in this manuscript in the future writing, and strive to write higher quality papers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This is fine for publication 

English is improved well

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review of the manuscript. Your suggestions provide a very important help for us to modify and improve the quality of the manuscript. We will pay attention to the problems in this manuscript in the future writing, and strive to write higher quality papers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf