Observations of Cross-Shore Chenier Dynamics in Demak, Indonesia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Figure 2: This image could be improved. For example, one could indicate with an arrow the cheniers and the mangroves.
Lines 71-81 and 82-88. It is not methodology. These paragraphs would be better in the introduction.
Lines 186-188 Could the speed of migration be estimated and its value explicitly stated in the text? (meters / day)
Lines 375-376, should be written as conclusions. Figures 4 and 5 have already been shown. Suggestion: "Under relatively calm hydrodynamic conditions the chenier migrated towards land with a speed of XX m / day"
The manuscript must be restructured. Parts included in the methodology, deal with the history of the place and are better in the introduction. The authors could consider creating a subsection "Study area" where they include all the relevant data, monsoon season, tidal range, swell, sea breeze, etc. I would prefer Analysis and Discussion to be merged into one section. Conclusions should be written more precisely and directly.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript. Please see the attachment for our response, explaining in detail how we have edited the manuscript to address each comment.
Kind regards,
Silke Tas
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper under review describes the results of a field survey of cross-shore dynamics in Demak, Indonesia with the focus on the bar and chenier movement. I have not been involved in the chenier dynamics problem before (only in the classic problem of cross-shore sediment transport), so I find the Introduction to the article very informative to get ideas of this problem. The description of only the observed chenier motion dynamics deserves publication. I understand the difficulties of quantifying the chenier motion, but I will immediately say that I am satisfied with the qualitative interpretation of the observed motion through the evaluation of the measured flow components and the conclusions obtained. Therefore, I would like to recommend publishing the reviewed paper. Nevertheless, I would like to get the answers to the following comments of mine:
- An interval of 30 minutes is selected as the averaging time. Why hasn’t the interval of 20 minutes been chosen which is typical, for example, when determining a significant wave height?
- I would like to get at least a brief description of the procedure for obtaining the horizontal velocity through pressure in the paper. The reference to work [22] is not enough, although this paper is in open access.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript. Please see the attachment for our response, explaining in detail how we have edited the manuscript to address each comment.
Kind regards,
Silke Tas
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
this new version is better organized and is much easier to read
