The Processes of Aggradation and Incision in the Channels in the Terek River Basin, the North Caucasus: The Hydrological Fluvial Archives of the Recent Past
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Report
The author analyzes the morphological evolution of the river channels of the Terek River watershed. In terms of form, the article is well written and well structured. The problem and the objectives of the study are well explained. Figures and tables are of good quality. The methods are well described and the results are well analyzed. The discussion was well conducted. Basically, there are still a few clarifications to be made.
1. The method used to analyze the morphological evolution (point 2.6) needs to be better developed and explained because the two references cited in this section are in Russian, therefore inaccessible for many readers.
2. It is very important to present and describe flood flow data that influence channel erosion and accumulation processes.
3. For table 1, it would be important to use only one reference point to calculate the distances.
4. For the data in Figures 5, 6 and 7, it would be important to apply a Mann-Kendall type statistical test to analyze long-term trends.
5. The first paragraph of the “Results” section should be in the Methods.
No comments
Author Response
The author is grateful to reviewer 1 for useful remarks and suggestions. Relevant changes and additions made to the text are highlighted in red. See the file with the answers.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author,
Generally comments:
The work in this edition is completely unsuitable for publication.
The title itself is poorly worded. River channels are not deformed (substantive error), we only have veritical records of channel changes due to incision or aggradation, therefore in the title should have been changes or evidence of fluvial processes.
The scientific structure of the manuscript is not preserved. Methods and regional descriptions are mixed up. In the introduction, information is given which is not suitable for high mountains with active tectonic processes, which can be compared with the study area.
We have no chapter Material and Methods with explanations.
There are various errors in each section!
The results presented are promising, but not described properly. Even the simple drawings do not meet cartographic standards.
Geographical region should be written by capital letters – in this manuscript these records are treated very variably.
Unify records (units) in all text: m3/s or m3 s-1, in the abstract is different than all text.
Only the abstract and summary make any sense!
The manuscript is suitable for a journal, but after thorough rewriting…
Detailed comments to 126 line:
Title: Vertical deformation – definition:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303243419309201
maybe change Vertical deformation – on: vertical fluvial tendencies, changes or processes
or evidence for incision and aggradation events…. – it is safety notion
add geographical region in the title
1. Introduction
In the Introduction I would rather introduce data from high mountains, folded in the Alpine orogeny, e.g. the Cordillera and the Colorado Canyon, because there are evidence of aggradation and incision, rather than citing tectonically stable areas, such as is the Nile River valley in the African part of old Gondwana. A chapter to be completely rewritten!
2.1. The physiography of the Terek River basin
This is chapter 2 - Geographical and geological setting or Physiography of the Terek River basin
It is neither the material nor the method… - create new chapter, please…
Line 63 – unify the units
Line 63 – see in abstract, how is Ossetia Plain (geographical region)
Figure 1 - no river arrows, no differentiation in description and font of rivers, lands or mountain ranges, description of rivers in blue, italic and smaller font
inscriptions and descriptions of heights overlap, why lowland is written by small letter and mountains by capital one?; adapt altitude descriptions a.s.l. to the course of horizons and, in accordance with cartographic principles, write them as horizontally as possible
Line 79 – introduce, please - 3. Material and Metods
Line 79-84 - Are there only 2 statements about material and method? - This is for a complete description - how was the data acquisition procedure (Method) and what was involved (Material)
This part is underdeveloped!
Line 85 – Table 1 - a full table should be made, as it is unreadable, the units are misspelled; in the second column, do not enter Terek several times, but merge the cells. Do this for all rivers with at least two stations.
Figure 2
rather
Fluvial forms of the Terek River basin against the tectonical tendences (or evidences)
faults hang in the air, there is no reference to the primary surface
line 126 – no information in the Methods
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Dear English Language Team Correction,
check records of numbers.
Author Response
The author is grateful to reviewer 2 for useful remarks and suggestions. The main changes and additions made to the text in response to the comments of the reviewer 2 are highlighted in blue. The answers are in the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author,
your work "Vertical deformations of the channels in the Terek River basin: the hydrological fluvial archives of the recent past" is interesting, but You done too much mistake.
All detail comments are in pdf file. Below, I add main points, wich must be improve.
Abstract - to improve
Introduction- to improve
Methods- to improve
Results- to improve
Discussion- to improve
Conclusion- to improve
Best regards
Reviewer
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
No comments.
Author Response
The author is grateful to the reviewer for a detailed analysis of the manuscript. All comments from the pdf file have been moved to this file for the convenience of replies. The changes made to the text in response to the comments of the reviewer 3 are highlighted in green. All the answers are in the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
On the manuscript, I have added my comments.
The article has been cleaned up, but the mathematical notation and geographical names continue to be improved - in the text and in the figures.
Further in the Introduction and Discussion there are no references to research results from tectonically active mountains and their piedmonts. This is the weakest part of the work.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Please, check the names of stations and the English text
Author Response
The author is grateful to Reviewer for useful remarks and suggestions. Relevant additions made to the text are highlighted in blue.
On the manuscript, I have added my comments.
The article has been cleaned up, but the mathematical notation and geographical names continue to be improved - in the text and in the figures.
All the mathematical notation and geographical names were improved according to the comments of the reviewer.
Further in the Introduction and Discussion there are no references to research results from tectonically active mountains and their piedmonts. This is the weakest part of the work.
In the Introduction, the references to the papers on the research of tectonically active mountains and piedmonts ([4] and [5]) were highlighted in blue.
In the Discussion, section 5.4 was added with the description of the possibilities of stage-discharge method application. At present, any interregional correlation of studies of fluvial processes using this method is impossible, since there are very few publications using it in the international literature. A discussion of numerous studies using other methods for processing fluvial paleoarchives, including those mentioned in the Introduction, is beyond the scope of this paper.
Please, check the names of stations and the English text
The names of stations are checked
The figures of high quality were sent to MDPI
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author,
thank You very much for answers and comments. Your work is complite now.
Best regards
Reviewer
Author Response
The author is grateful to Reviewer for useful remarks and suggestions.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author,
Please standardize station names throughout the text
the X... station or the station X. It varies.
Please standardize station names throughout the text
the X... station or the station X. It varies.
Author Response
I am grateful to the reviewer for the valuable comments, the text was changed according. All station names were standardized: the station X or the gauging station X
