Predicting Suspended Sediment Transport in Urbanised Streams: A Case Study of Dry Creek, South Australia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This manuscript investigated the relationships between streamflow, turbidity, and suspended sediment concentration (SSC) in Dry Creek, South Australia. The authors suggested a linear relationship between streamflow and SSC, and a non-linear relationship between turbidity and SSC. On this basis, a sediment rating curve (SRC) was developed. These findings may help to enhance our understanding of sediment transport dynamics in urbanized environments. The specific questions that require further discussion or explanation in the current manuscript are outlined in a PDF file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your feedback helps us to improve the quality of the manuscript. Please find the detailed responses attached and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this study, the authors have examined the relationship between turbidity, SSC, and flow discharge in an urban area based on detailed observations, and their data are of some value. I am positive that this paper will be published, but some corrections need to be made before publication.
L40-42, Please add recent research on each of the problems caused by sedimentation and erosion. For example,
1) agricultural productivity: Bhatti et al. (2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063547)
2) reservoir capacity: Bekri et al. (2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/w13131819)
3) water quality: Hu et al. (2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183303)
4) channel function: Inoue et al. (2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/w12071881)
L89-98, The novelty of the study is unclear. Since the previous paragraph mentions sediment hysteresis in detail, I guess that this study focuses on sediment hysteresis in urban areas. However, the novelty of your study is unclear because in the previous paragraphs there is no critical review of the problems faced by conventional observation methods, data collection methods, and sediment curves. Note that at this point I have only read the introduction, so it is possible that I am mistaken. However, an intro that leads to misunderstandings needs to be corrected.
Figure 2 (Left), Please circle in red which three data you have removed.
L215-226, Is the middle figure in Figure 3 included in the “first flush effect”? In the middle figure, the turbidity peaks observed both before and after the flow peak. Please add more detail explanation for this figure. The author also states that the “first flush effect” was observed in most observations, but only the top figure is clear and does not provide evidence for "most".
L312-330, Expressing Qs as a power function of flow discharge Q makes it impossible to take sediment hysteresis into account. I am confused because I thought the purpose of this study was to create an SRC that took sediment hysteresis into account.
L416-424, Add the impact of climate change as a limitation of SRC. Kido et al. (2023, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40645-023-00580-0) predict that a 1.2- to 1.6-fold increase in flow discharge due to climate change will result in a 3- to 5.5-fold increase in sediment discharge. This is due to differences in rainfall pattern and the increased slope failures that occur as a result of this.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your feedback helps us to improve the quality of the manuscript. Please find the detailed responses attached and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPredicting Sediment Transport in Urbanized Streams: A Case 2 Study of Dry Creek, South Australia
This research introduces a case study for suspended sediment load estimation in urbanized watersheds using a combination of field work and statistical analysis for Dry Creek, South Australia. The authors successfully analyzed the collected data and introduced methodology to predict the sediment discharge based on rainfall and the resulted hydrograph. The authors effectively presented and discussed their findings.
However, there are some minor comments:
1- Title: Please add the word “Suspended” to the title
2- Keywords: sediment discharge is almost equal sediment rating curve; so, use one only.
3- Page 2 line 59 first time to mention SRC in text so add definition.
4- Page 4 line 123, please add link to online database offered by DEW.
5- Page 6 lines 215-226, please divide figure 3 and match each figure 3a, 3b or 3c to its explanation.
6- Figure 6, the equation may be written in mg/s to show more accurate constant by adding decimals
Qs=0.2-- Q1.88
7- Page 11 line 339, Separate the explanation of figures7 and 8 then put figure 7 after its explanation.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your feedback helps us to improve the quality of the manuscript. Please find the detailed responses attached and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral Comments following MDPI guidelines:
· Is the manuscript clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner?
The manuscript relevant to the field of sediment transport in urbanized catchments. The topic has important implications for water quality and sediment management strategies. The study presents sediment transport dynamics at a urban creek located in South Australia. The relationships between streamflow (Q), turbidity (T), and suspended sediment concentration (SSC) are addressed. The study contains collection of field experimental data, laboratory analysis and the use of model to predict SSC and sediment loads. Results show a complex interplay between streamflow, turbidity, and suspended sediment concentration in the studied site. These results provide new insights iin the field of sediment transport in urban areas.
· Are the cited references mostly recent publications (within the last 5 years) and relevant? Does it include an excessive number of self-citations?
More than 30 of the 79 cited references have been published within the last 5 years. Several references All references appear relevant to the research topic, even if several references are citations from workshops or congresses proceedings. Excessive self-citations haven´t been detected.
· Is the manuscript scientifically sound and is the experimental design appropriate to test the hypothesis?
The manuscript is scientifically sound. Field experimental design, laboratory analysis and medialization are appropriate. The aims and objectives of the research are clearly stated in the last paragraph of the Introduction section.
· Are the manuscript’s results reproducible based on the details given in the methods section?
The manuscript’s results are reproducible by other scientist analyzing sediment transport in urbanized environments. The description made in the Material and Methods section can be used for other urbanized areas with a limited number of experimental data, which is a very common reality.
· Are the figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand? Is the data interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript? Please include details regarding the statistical analysis or data acquired from specific databases.
Maps, figures and tables show a great quality.
However, figures can be improved. This is because graphs need to “stand alone” in understanding. For example, in Figure 3 T and Q appear on y-axes. So, please write out what Q, and T stand for on y-axes of this graphs. This recommendation also is valuable for other figures.
· Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?
The Conclusions section adequately summarizes the major findings. This notwithstanding, I would suggest to update the end of the Conclusions section with a short paragraph on how future research can improve upon the current work.
· Please evaluate the data availability statements to ensure it is adequate.
The Data Availability Statement is fine.
Other comments
Please, revise the manuscript for Typos. For example Figure 3 (22/08/23), the secondary axes should read T (NTU) instead of T(NTU.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript which helps us to improve the quality of the manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached response to the reviewer file and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI confirmed that the authors were courteous in their response to my peer review comments. I think this paper is now easier to understand than before.
