Effects of Patch Density and Incoming Sediment on Flow Characteristics and Bed Morphology
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The abstract is too long, and the abstract should summarise the problem or aim of your research, its method, results and conclusions, but the current description lacks the method and conclusions. It should be accurate. Don't promise more than your article can deliver.
The introduction is also too long, keep it short, it should state the problem investigated, its contextual background and the reasons for conducting the research, but not be a history lesson.
The experimental procedure should be shorter and more logical than its current description, introduce what the equipment is and how to do the experiment, don't list the example in the reference (see lines 182 to 187).
Don't put the equation in the discussion, put it in the method part. The conclusion should make a clear statement about the research, instead list the results.
The English language is poor and verbose, extensive editing of the English language is required, the context should be brief for the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks a lot for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. I have carefully considered the suggestion and make some changes. I'm sorry to keep you waiting so long. I have tried my best to improve and revise my manuscript, which takes too much time. Please find my response in below and my revisions in the re-submitted files.
First of all, the title have been shorten as “Effects of Patch Density of Emergent Vegetation Patch Density and Incoming Sediment on Flow Characteristics and Bed Morphology”.
Second, I correct all the mistakes in spelling, grammar, and editing. Also, I have improved the language with the help of the the agency recommended by the journal.
Third, I have unified the font in some figures (Figure 2 to 11) and deleted some figures and equations.
Next, I have explained all your questions and added their answers to the paper. I add some details about the experiment and some statements about the reason of the outcomes. The details are as follow:
“The abstract is too long, and the abstract should summarise the problem or aim of your research, its method, results and conclusions, but the current description lacks the method and conclusions. It should be accurate. Don't promise more than your article can deliver.”: Your suggestion is professional and I agree with you. I have rewritten the abstract according to your suggestion which can be seen in line 9-24 (new manuscript).
“The introduction is also too long, keep it short, it should state the problem investigated, its contextual background and the reasons for conducting the research, but not be a history lesson.”: Your suggestion is professional and I agree with you. I have deleted some content which is unnecessary. The corrected content is mainly in the line 81-124.
“The experimental procedure should be shorter and more logical than its current description, introduce what the equipment is and how to do the experiment, don't list the example in the reference (see lines 182 to 187).”: Your suggestion is professional and I have corrected them with your recommendation. The main improved content can be seen in line 137-202.
“The English language is poor and verbose, extensive editing of the English language is required, the context should be brief for the manuscript.”: Your suggestion is professional and I have improved the language.
Thanks again !
Best wishes
Dan Wang
Reviewer 2 Report
This article explored the effects of the vegetation patch density, the bed condition, and the incoming sediment on the flow structure and the bed morphology by using laboratory experiments. It revealed the effects of different experimental schemes on the parameters of velocity, TKE distribution, and bed morphodynamics. Although the analyst's results seemed valuable, I think the manuscript does not clearly discuss the results, which leads to ambiguity in the conclusion of the article. The manuscript provides many qualitative conclusions without quantitative descriptions.
Revision points
1) Title; suggest "Effects of Patch Density of Emergent Vegetation Patch Density and Incoming Sediment on Flow Characteristics and Bed Morphology" be written as "Effects of Patch Density of Emergent Vegetation Patch and Incoming Sediment on Flow Characteristics and Bed Morphology."
2) Please supplement the basis for setting experimental parameters in the Experimental procedures.
3) How to verify or convince others of the conclusion of the experiment, especially without quantitative values?
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Please unify the font format in the figures.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks a lot for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. I have carefully considered the suggestion and make some changes. I'm sorry to keep you waiting so long. I have tried my best to improve and revise my manuscript, which takes too much time. Please find my response in below and my revisions in the re-submitted files.
First of all, I correct all the mistakes in spelling, grammar, and editing. Also, I have improved the language with the help of the the agency recommended by the journal.
Second, I have deleted some figures (previous Figure2, Figure3, and Figure8) and equations (previous Equation3, Equation7, Equation8, Equation10 and Equation11).
Next, I have explained all your questions and added their answers to the paper. I add some details about the experiment and some statements about the reason of the outcomes. The details are as follow:
“1) Title; suggest ‘Effects of Patch Density of Emergent Vegetation Patch Density and Incoming Sediment on Flow Characteristics and Bed Morphology’ be written as ‘Effects of Patch Density of Emergent Vegetation Patch and Incoming Sediment on Flow Characteristics and Bed Morphology.’”: Your suggestion is professional. The title have been shorten as “Effects of Patch Density of Emergent Vegetation Patch Density and Incoming Sediment on Flow Characteristics and Bed Morphology”. I reduced the word count more because other editors felt the title was too long. If you think it's inappropriate I can revise it again based on your suggestions.
“2) Please supplement the basis for setting experimental parameters in the Experimental procedures. ”: The basis for the selection of the patch density and the accordance for the vegetation is sparse or dense are written in line 157-164 (new). The diameter of the sediment was estimated based on the Sharmov formula and a preliminary test which is written in line 171-173. Some arrangement of test sections and sampling points are according to some literature review which can be seen in line 186-187. In addition, the previous manuscript included more references for the selection of parameters based on the literature, but an editor suggested not to list the reference in the experimental procedure, and I deleted some of them.
“3) How to verify or convince others of the conclusion of the experiment, especially without quantitative values? ”: I re-planned and rewrote the results of this thesis. Due to the insufficient grouping on feeding sediment case, it is not possible to give scientifically accurate formulas for the relevant calculations, in order to make up for this shortcoming the paper lists some specific values of the research content to illustrate the innovations found. In the next work, the experiments on the amount of sediment supply will be operated with further studies on the effects of incoming sediment on flow structure and bed morphology. And quantitative calculations and relevant models may be carried out.
“Please unify the font format in the figures.”: I have unified the font in some figures (Figure 2 to 11).
Thanks again !
Best wishes
Dan Wang
Reviewer 3 Report
· The title is too long, please shorten it a bit.
· The abstract is written by qualitative sentences. It is need to modify and rewrite based on the most important quantity results from this research. The abstract should be redesigned. You should avoid using acronyms in the abstract and insert the work's main conclusion.
· You have used many abbreviations in the text. From this perspective, an Index of Notations and Abbreviations would be beneficial for a better understanding of the proposed work. Furthermore, please check carefully if all the abbreviations and notations considered in work are explained for the first time when they are used, even if these are considered trivial by the authors. The paper should be accessible to a wide audience. Furthermore, it will make sense to include also the notations in this index.
· The objectives should be more explicitly stated.
· It is better to improve your contributions which are not so clear to show the advantage of your work.
· The novelty of this work must be clearly addressed and discussed in Introduction section.
· The methodology limitation should be mentioned. Many equations are presented in the paper, and most look OK. However, please check carefully whether all equations are necessary and whether the quantities involved are properly explained. Also, some equations need references.
· Results. Please interpret the results in a more convenient and clear way, what did you find and why?
· Discussion. Overall, the discussion part is weak. The Discussion should summarize the manuscript's main finding(s) in the context of broader scientific literature and address any study limitations or results that conflict with other published work.
· Conclusion: Some future works should be added to your conclusion. Please elaborate on it a bit more.
· There are some occasional grammatical problems within the text. It may need the attention of someone fluent in English language to enhance the readability.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks a lot for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. I have carefully considered the suggestion and make some changes. I'm sorry to keep you waiting so long. I have tried my best to improve and revise my manuscript, which takes too much time. Please find my response in below and my revisions in the re-submitted files.
I have written a reply to your questions and suggestions in the attached file, please download it. Thank you very much for your help.
Best wishes
Dan Wang
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author had revised the manuscript according to the reviewer's suggestions, but abstract should be more concise.
It should be revised by language editing.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks again for your suggestion and constructive comments on my manuscript. I have thoroughly studied your latest revision and given it careful consideration. I deeply regret any inconvenience caused by the delay.
First, I addressed the language and editing problems on my own. Then I sought the assistance of my British professor to further refine the language and editing in accordance with your comment.
Second, your suggestion is relevant and the abstract ought to be more concise. So I've simplified the abstract by removing some unnecessary content which can be seen in line 7-22 (new manuscript).
Third, I removed three references of Liu et al., and Yan et al. (line 83, line 99, line 747, line 749, and line 778).
Finally, I have further revised each section of this study to make it more concise and scientific.
Thanks a lot!
Kind regards,
Dan Wang
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion, the conclusion section can be more concise.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks again for your constructive comments on my manuscript.
First, I've revised the Conclusion section a bit to make it more concise as your suggestion, which can be seen in the latest manuscript (line 669-712). The last two paragraphs were added in response to comments from other reviewers about the novelty of this research and some future works.
Additionally, the language has been edited by MDPI. The certificate is attached.
Kind regards,
Dan Wang
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
can be accepted. however ,do not cite many articles of one author in references e.g. liu
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks again for your comments on my manuscript. I appreciate your acknowledgement of my work. Since the paper still requires some revision in content and further language editing, I apologize for the delay in submission.
First, your suggestion is relevant and reference of Liu is a bit. So I removed three references of Liu et al., and Yan et al. in accordance with your comment. (line 83, line 99, line 747, line 749, and line 778).
Second, I've simplified the abstract by removing some unnecessary content which can be seen in line 7-22.
Third, I addressed the some language and editing problems on my own. Then I sought the assistance of my British professor to further revise the language and editing.
Finally, I have further revised each section of this study to make it more concise and scientific.
Thanks a lot!
Kind regards,
Dan Wang
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript had revised according to the reviewers' suggestions, it could be accepted.
The language should be polished by English editors.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks again for your comment on my manuscript. According to your suggestion, the language has been edited by MDPI. The certificate is in the attachment. What's more, the conclusion section has been revised a bit to make it more concise, which can be seen in the latest manuscript (line 669-712).
Kind regards,
Dan Wang
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
