Numerical Simulation of Donghu Lake Hydrodynamics and Water Quality Based on Remote Sensing and MIKE 21
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article contains material that will certainly be of interest to Geo-Information readers. It is based on extensive research material. Unfortunately, the form of the article means that in my opinion it cannot be published in its current version. The most important notes include:
- the layout of the article is inappropriate. No separate and consistently described part of materials and methods, no properly described methodology for sampling, results of calculations and discussion are mixed up with the description of the concept of calculations,
- lack of clearly defined purpose and scope of work,
- there is no precise concept for the calculation method used. Readers are surprised by the next used tools in different parts of the article,
- admission is based on narrow, practically limited only to Chinese literature inaccessible to readers,
- English requires significant correction.
I suggest the following classic layout of the article:
- Introduction,
- Purpose and scope of the article,
- Research methodology
- Research object
- Results and duscussion
- Conclusions
Specific comments:
Introduction
- Authors should refer to world literature and not almost exclusively Chinese.
- You cannot use words like "home and abroad"
- I don't understand how the authors went from surface water quality to water body quality. Simulation methods alone are not enough. I understand that field research is also necessary. There is no information on this topic,
- The section should end with clarifying the purpose and scope of work.
Study area
- Description of the research object is insufficient. Location alone is not enough
- A large part of this section has been placed in the other sections,
- What does the symbol V in the 7th row of this section mean?
MIKE21 model
- The authors use the commercial program of the DHI company, not mentioning its authors anywhere,
- There is no need to describe the equations and numerical methods contained in it in a commercial program. This part of the article brings nothing new,
- The way the model is built is much more interesting for readers - assumptions, boundary and initial conditions, geometry etc.
- What is the ECO Lab module? There is no information as to whether it is part of the MIKE21 commercial program. If so, then its description is unnecessary, it is enough to indicate its use.
Remote sensing inversion ...
- This section should be found in Materials and methods
- The abbreviations BP and GA, COD, TP, TN etc. used for the first time should be explained.
- What tool did the authors use to build the indicated nauron network and optimization calculations? This part is in my opinion interesting, hence the lack of information is surprising.
- Where and how were the samples taken, at what depth and in what places? Has a geometric measuring network been used? Were the samples taken averaged? How many replicate samples were there? What were the listed pollution indicators measured according to which standards?
- Tab. 1 is completely illegible. Instead of geographical coordinates, I suggest referring to the locations of the example points in the drawing,
- MATLAB tool suddenly appears. It should be described before in method concept
Model training and evaluation
- This part should be after the model description, in the results and discussion section,
- Statistical processing is incomplete: what test was used to determine the significance of the calculations, no level of significance in the charts, the sample charts in Fig. 1 are unclear,
- What does fitness value 2.47 mean - is it little or not? No appropriate comment,
Model application
- A description of the object should not be included in this part.
- The authors describe a typical model building process in the finite element method. However, there is necessary to have to look much further for what is important - boundary conditions (Dirichlet, Neumann?) And initial conditions,
- Generally a disordered description of the method used, its various components are scattered throughout the article,
Tab 6 - where from suddenly Tanglin Lake and others? Too modest description of the object
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
please find the comments on the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the subtitles, the format is a bit neglected. Cursiva to 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.2.1,3.2.2.2 …
In section “Introduction” is necessary add more articles about water quality numerical simulation
In section “Study Area” add space after dot. First sentence.
In section “Hydrodynamic Module” in description of MIKE21 model add reference.
In section 3.2.1, please to correct year for March and October. Please correct the units in band range, and review the band range, ie b1-b7 or b1-b5.
Please correct unit km2 -> km2, m3 ->m3, m2 ->m2
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The purpose of the article should be correlated with the first paragraph of section 4.1.
Section 4.1.1. I still do not know if the data was collected throughout the month and averaged or taken once a month
Table 4 liter - L, missing subscript for chemical formulas
Table 5: uniform format m2/s, 1/day, not day-1
18 out of 32 references are not available to the European reader - in Chinese
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Numerical simulation of Donghu Lake hydrodynamic and water quality based on remote sensing and MIKE 21” (ID: ijgi-672120). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
The purpose of the article should be correlated with the first paragraph of section 4.1.
Response: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Response to comment: Section 4.1.1. I still do not know if the data was collected throughout the month and averaged or taken once a month
Response: We have made addition according to the Reviewer’s comments.The data was collected taken once a month.
Response to comment: Table 4 liter - L, missing subscript for chemical formulas
Response: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Response to comment: Table 5: uniform format m2/s, 1/day, not day-1
Response: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Response to comment: 18 out of 32 references are not available to the European reader - in Chinese
Response: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised version improved significantly and after some (very) minor edits can be accepted for publishing. Please find these comments in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Numerical simulation of Donghu Lake hydrodynamic and water quality based on remote sensing and MIKE 21” (ID: ijgi-672120). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
