Mining Scheme for Small Rivers near Water Sources—A Case Study of Liuan River in Linquan County, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper deals with a very exotic but serious problem, which deals with the impact of mining on the hydrological balance of the nearest river(s). The ecological minimum is a very complex task, despite a lot of theoretical and practical recommendations and equations.
The unexpected impact of the climate changes, especially droughts does not have a positive impact on all the mentioned. I am aware that the authors took a lot of their time, knowledge, energy, and efforts during writing the paper, but I am proposing a major revision. Please find the reasons for my decision. -the paper is written in a superficial form. Abstract notes and a conclusion are not overlapping in their facts. Statement ''. It was found that the water supply from small rivers is insufficient in 95% typical dry years.'', while the Conclusion section has many facts, which are different from the mentioned one in the Abstract. By the way, this is a too general option, which is not valid for the other rivers, even closest to the analyzed one. -authors didn't make the presentation of the existing methods for the determination of the ecological flow. There is a need for a chapter, which will include this. -authors didn't declare the selection of the method for the calculation of ecological flow. -figures 1 and 2 should be placed in chapter 2. -there is a lack of a hydrological description of the problem. Please enclose hydrograms of the river. -the paper needs a grammar correction.Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have revised the manuscript and I believe that now it can be published in the journal.
Author Response
There is no comment
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors didn't correct all required from my revision. Only minor changes were done. For example, comments 1 and 2 are not satisfied.
In comment 1, I was asking for justification of the statement that the authors wrote. The authors didn't answer this with arguments; the authors adjusted the claims to suit them. Regarding comment 2, the authors didn't enclose a description and elaboration/review of the methods for the determination of the ecological minimum. I am insisting on this because these are the crucial parts of the manuscript. Without this, the manuscript does not have any scientific contribution. In this form, the paper is not suitable for acceptance. Also, the English language is still at the not so high level.Author Response
Dear reviewers, we attach great importance to your comments. We have made a comprehensive revision to the paper according to your opinions, especially the content of the ecological flow. Thank you very much for everything you have done to our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Title: Mining scheme for small rivers near water sources
Authors: Zhenyu He , Bo Kang, Yuezan Tao , Li Qin
The manuscript is well structured and written in good scientific language. The introduction reflects the main idea of a future article. Methods adequately describe the main principles of the study. Results and Discussion fully reveal the main findings of the research.The Conclusion summarizes the work and is the logical conclusion of the described research.The abundance of figures helps to better understand the information and enhances the impression of the manuscript. The author demonstrate a good knowledge of the subject, the study results are comprehensively presented and structured.
In the reviewer’s opinion the manuscript may be published after a thorough check of references and text design according to the journal requirements.
My comments are listed below:
- Check all references to literature and arrange them in accordance with the requirements of the journal.
- In the Introduction and Discussion section, it is desirable to add 5-10 references to modern articles. 17 references for an international journal are too few.
Author Response
We added six references
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have appreciated the efforts by the Authors in addressing my concerns. However, I find the manuscript would require further improvements and several editorial refinements. Specific comments are provided below. They are not of particular criticality and could be considered as minor revisions.
- [Introduction] At the end of this section the Authors should give more emphasis to the novelties in terms of new methodologies. This issue is not yet clear.
- [Hydrological conditions] The Authors only added a few of information (i.e. the annual average water level, annual average flow, and minimum daily flow). However, I would provide more consistent and attractive information. For instance, the temporal trend over the year/years for the mean daily flow, as stressed in my previous review. In addition at line 113 where it reads "is 34 meters", I would specify "is 34 meters a.s.l.".
- [Title of the section 5] I find the the title of this section "Results and Discussion" would generate confusion when compared to the title of the section 4 "Numerical Results and Discussion". The Authors should tackle this drawback.
- [Figures] I have appreciated the effort by the Authors in improving the quality of all figures. Conversely, I find that all the figure captions are still too brief while they need to be more explicative.
- [Quality of the text and style] The text of the paper needs several editorial improvements. Typically the editorial team of Water journal performs an excellent job in this direction at the proofreading stage. I hope that this is also the case for this manuscript, the style of which in present form is very weak!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
No comment.
Author Response
The expert has no comment.
