Vertical Divergence Characteristics of Dissolved Inorganic Carbon and Influencing Factors in a Karst Deep-Water Reservoir, Southwest China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The results and discussion section of the abstract need to be rewritten. The results are too simple and the conclusion is too one-sided.

2. The third and fourth paragraphs of the Introduction need to be rewritten. The third paragraph is too simple, and the fourth paragraph does not explain the meaning of this manuscript very well.

3. Due to the author's unclear scientific questions, the discussion section was too focused, especially the research results and the characteristics of karst areas were not well understood

4. There are too many conclusions, and the content needs to be further streamlined.Regarding the characteristics of karst areas, it is recommended to carefully read two articles and cite the content of the manuscript:

(1) Factors Influencing the Evolution of Human-driven Rocky Desertification in Karst Areas. Land Degradation & Development, 2020, 31: 2506-2513.

(2) Spatial heterogeneity of soil organic carbon in a karst region under different land use patterns. Ecosphere 11(3):e03077. 10.1002/ecs2.3077

5. The legend of Figure 1 is not very clear, it is recommended to draw a new one.

6. Suggest replacing Tables 1 and 2 with figures.

Author Response

We appreciate the work of the reviewers and editors on the article. The reviewers' comments were very pertinent and we have revised the article in more detail according to the reviewers' comments. We have responded to the reviewers' comments point by point. Please see the submitted document for a detailed response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript conducted a study on the hydrological and hydrochemical characteristics of the Pingzhai Reservoir in Southwestern Guizhou Province, China, at a spatiotemporal scale, revealing some phenomena. However, these phenomena are generally common knowledge and have little contribution to this research field. Especially, this manuscript had not a clear scientific objective and the research significance is unclear. In addition, there are at least many issues with this manuscript that I cannot recommend for publication in this journal.

 

1. The research contents are unrelated to the atmosphere, which means it is not suitable for publication in this journal;

 

2. English expression is extremely difficult to understand;

 

3. Some data are clearly incorrect, such as the water temperature and DO in January 2021;

 

4. There are two parts in Figure 3d, what are they?

 

5. The citation of references is not standardized;

 

6. Some analysis and judgment are not rigorous, such as the DIC from carbon weather (39.56%) and oil (64.04%) (Line 27), and what about the air source? With a rainy season from July to October (Line 92), it should begin the rainy season since May;

 

7. In Line 115, "relative error<± 3%", data is definitely incorrect;

 

8. The purpose of correlation analysis between all data is unclear.

English expressions are basically Chinglish.

Author Response

We appreciate the work of the reviewers and editors on the article. The reviewers' comments were very pertinent and we have revised the article in more detail according to the reviewers' comments. We have responded to the reviewers' comments point by point. Please see the submitted document for a detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

There are some uncertain espression or formatting errors in manuscript. 

1. Line 400, format error in molecular formula of carbon dioxide and methane; 

2. The abbreviation or full name of publication in the referrences should be consistent in manuscrip; 

 

•  

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

We appreciate the work of the reviewers and editors on the article. The reviewers' comments were very pertinent and we have revised the article in more detail according to the reviewers' comments. We have responded to the reviewers' comments point by point. Please see the submitted document for a detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Given the internal environment is complex, and the thermal stratification effect was not the only factor controlling the vertical distribution of DIC concentration, the work that focused on exploring the migration and transformation of DIC in a Karst deep-water reservoir in southwest China is very important and interesting. The manuscript is well-written, and I have a few minor comments, which may help improve clarity in some places. This manuscript can be accepted for published in this journal after the minor comments have been addressed.

1.        Please lessen the Figure 1a and enlarge the Figure 1b and c

2.        Figure 2. Please simply explain the dominant reason for the seasonal or monthly variation of DO in the context.

3.        Tables 1 and 2. Please add more information on the indication of the these correlation analysis.

4.        Please shorten the conclusion and simplify the key findings.

Strong  language understanding and expression skills

Author Response

We appreciate the work of the reviewers and editors on the article. The reviewers' comments were very pertinent and we have revised the article in more detail according to the reviewers' comments. We have responded to the reviewers' comments point by point. Please see the submitted document for a detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has made modifications as required and suggests accepting the manuscript

Author Response

We are grateful for the positive comments on the revised manuscript. This recognition will encourage us to continue our research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, I still cannot recommend publishing this article, as described in the Abstract as "the δ13CDIC values were positive in the surface layer and negative in the lower layer" is incorrect. The carbon isotope of surface water cannot be positive number, and the analysis error of carbon isotope is 3%, which is 30‰, which is unacceptable ....... In short, I am not satisfied with the revision of the manuscript. 

Author Response

Conment 1: As described in the Abstract as "the δ13CDIC values were positive in the surface layer and negative in the lower layer" is incorrect.

Response 1:  We have double-checked the content of the abstract and there is no "the δ13CDIC values were positive in the surface layer and negative in the lower layer" in the abstract. It may be that there was such a statement, but that we changed it in the first revision. 

Conment 2: The carbon isotope of surface water cannot be positive number, and the analysis error of carbon isotope is 3%, which is 30‰, which is unacceptable.

Response 2: The presentation of carbon isotope values and measurement errors in the article were written incorrectly by us. A correction has been made and is detailed in line 118.