The Effect of Modifying a CFD-AB Approach on Fish Passage through a Model Hydraulic Dam

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This review is for the manuscript titled “The effect of modifying CFD-AB approach on fish passage through a model hydraulic dam” as submitted to the journal Water.  The manuscript describes the standard CFD-AB approach (a computational fluid dynamics model combined with an agent-based fish model), suggests a higher-resolution approach based on interpolation, and compares the two approaches to demonstrate benefits of their proposed approach.

This is a fairly straightforward extension of the Zielinski et al. (2018) work which is cited frequently.  The extension involves modifying the area in which fish detect velocities around them and the time step in which fish make decisions.  The authors found these modifications provided meaningful improvement to the model, which they demonstrated using the important example of bighead carp attempting to pass dams in the Mississippi River.

I have only minor revisions suggested for the manuscript, as provided below.

L15: Shouldn’t this be bighead rather than bigheaded?

L15: Somewhere the abstract should specify the country for a global audience.

L20: Previously Lock and Dam was capitalized and given an acronym, but it should probably be lowercase throughout.  Here in the abstract either use the acronym in L20 or else omit the acronym from the abstract if it is not used therein.

L20: Previously carps, be consistent throughout.

L33: Specify the country.

L35: It is worth mentioning that several have been found in Minnesota already.  For example, I took the photo of the one found in 2003 shown here http://www.mrbp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/sorensen.pdf although it lacks photo credit.

L40: Same comment about Lock and Dam.

L68: Omit “a”

L72: were obtained

L103: an

L105: Omit this paragraph.

L179: prolonged,

L281: indent seems too much here

L316: to

L360: Some statement is needed here about how this compares to real-world LDs.

L373: This figure needs a bit more explanation and interpretation.  Why might the pattern look the way it does?

L389: 0.3,

L390: reword

L428: reword

L491: One biological issue I do not see addressed is jumping behavior, which has been well publicized for this species.  Although bighead do not exhibit the spectacular leaping of silver carp, they do have the ability to jump and incorporating this possibility could greatly improve the realism of the model.  I have personally observed northern pike jumping to attempt dam passage on the Mississippi River, and similar behavior in salmon has been widely recognized for many years.  I assume jumping would require a substantial burst of energy but would also have major benefits in terms of bypassing areas of very high water velocity in exchange for a negligible amount of air resistance.  My suggestion is not for an analysis of jumping as that would be beyond the scope of this study, but rather some brief mention of this or other ideas for future improvements to the model.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

We would like to thank the Reviewer for the thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. We are in fact grateful for the many insightful suggestions, which have challenged us to improve the quality of the manuscript and presentation of our method and results. We have responded to all the issues brought up by this reviewer and implemented several revisions in response to his/her comments as detailed below.

Q1. L15: Shouldn’t this be bighead rather than bigheaded?

A1. In this manuscript we consider only simulations of bighead carp nevertheless we decided to mention both species - bighead and silver carp as a threat for Minnesota waters. We have to mention although that our modification is applicable to both of these species, i.e. bighead carp. We mention about it on L.32-39

Q2. L15: Somewhere the abstract should specify the country for a global audience.

A2. We mention it in L16.

Q3. L20: Previously Lock and Dam was capitalized and given an acronym, but it should probably be lowercase throughout.  Here in the abstract either use the acronym in L20 or else omit the acronym from the abstract if it is not used therein.

A3. We use the acronym LD/LDs everywhere. See, for example, L21, L121, L124, etc.

Q4. L20: Previously carps, be consistent throughout.

A4. “Carp” is now used throughout when specifically referring to both species.

Q5. L33: Specify the country.

A5. Done. L33.

Q6. L35: It is worth mentioning that several have been found in Minnesota already.  For example, I took the photo of the one found in 2003 shown here http://www.mrbp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/sorensen.pdf although it lacks photo credit.

A6. We added information about capturing several bigheaded carps in Minnesota (U.S.A.). L35-L39.

Q7. L40: Same comment about Lock and Dam.

A7. We will use the acronym LD/LDs everywhere.

Q8. L68: Omit “a”

A8. Done.

Q9. L72: were obtained

A9. Done. L77

Q10. L103: an

A10. Done. L109.

Q11. L105: Omit this paragraph.

A11. We disagree with the reviewer and have decided to retain this paragraph which provides a necessary background on existing fish passage / movement models and distinguish why we investigated the model developed by Zielinski et al. (2018).

Q12. L179: prolonged,

A12. Done. L190.

Q13. L281: indent seems too much here

A13. Done. L287.

Q14. L316: to

A14. Done. L331.

Q15. L360: Some statement is needed here about how this compares to real-world LDs.

A15. We added explanations, L375-377.

Q16. L373: This figure needs a bit more explanation and interpretation.  Why might the pattern look the way it does?

A16. We added comments. L386-390.

Q17. L389: 0.3,

A17. Done. L409.

Q18. L390: reword

A18. Done. L410.

Q19. L428: reword

A19. Done. L466-L468.

Q20. L491: One biological issue I do not see addressed is jumping behavior, which has been well publicized for this species.  Although bighead do not exhibit the spectacular leaping of silver carp, they do have the ability to jump and incorporating this possibility could greatly improve the realism of the model.  I have personally observed northern pike jumping to attempt dam passage on the Mississippi River, and similar behavior in salmon has been widely recognized for many years.  I assume jumping would require a substantial burst of energy but would also have major benefits in terms of bypassing areas of very high water velocity in exchange for a negligible amount of air resistance.  My suggestion is not for an analysis of jumping as that would be beyond the scope of this study, but rather some brief mention of this or other ideas for future improvements to the model.

A20. We have added this idea in our conclusion as to future development of CFD-AB approach. See L534-538.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

“The effect of modifying CFD-AB approach on fish passage through a model hydraulic dam” by Anvar Gilmanov, Daniel Zielinski, Vaughan Voller, and Peter Sorensen

 

Good and interesting study and the results provided in this paper would be valuable for engineers and fish biologists involved in the design of Lock and Dams to block the upstream migration of invasive bigheaded carps. The manuscript is well written, well-referenced, and well presented. I recommend this paper to be published in the Water. 

 

However, my personal opinion of the manuscript is a minor revision with some additions to improve the manuscript. While doing the revision, the authors should consider the following points:

 

Lines 80-85, authors highlighted the time scale for the sustained swimming (> 200 min). Better to see the time scale for the prolonged and burst swimming modes from the literature for a complete set of information. Line 112, Methods: authors are aware that CFD models are very sensitive and without a correct calibration/validation the reproduction of 3D turbulent flow/conclusion could be misguided. As a CFD based study, I believe that the authors examined the model performances against the observed data, and these results are not presented here. Some of the model performance results especially the competency of the model to reproduce the major hydraulics should concisely discuss in this section “Methods” to highlight the credibility of the model. Although, the core objective of this paper is on modifying CFD-AB approach on fish passage. Line 186, “All velocities are measured in body length per second (BL.s)”. All velocities (e.g., Uf) or only for Us and Ums? Line 185, Us is already defined, do not need to define here. Line 491, Discussion: The authors may include some insight for future research.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

We would like to thank the Reviewer for the thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. We are in fact grateful for the many insightful suggestions, which have challenged us to improve the quality of the manuscript and presentation of our method and results. We have responded to all the issues brought up by this reviewer and implemented several revisions in response to his/her comments as detailed below.

 

Q1. Lines 80-85, authors highlighted the time scale for the sustained swimming (> 200 min). Better to see the time scale for the prolonged and burst swimming modes from the literature for a complete set of information.

A1. Done. L90-91

 

Q2. Line 112, Methods: authors are aware that CFD models are very sensitive and without a correct calibration/validation the reproduction of 3D turbulent flow/conclusion could be misguided. As a CFD based study, I believe that the authors examined the model performances against the observed data, and these results are not presented here. Some of the model performance results especially the competency of the model to reproduce the major hydraulics should concisely discuss in this section “Methods” to highlight the credibility of the model. Although, the core objective of this paper is on modifying CFD-AB approach on fish passage.

A2. We agree with the reviewer’s assessment that CFD models must be verified with field data.  The CFD models developed and tested by Zielinski et al. (2018) were validated using ADCP surveys ~100 m downstream of LD8 during 7 different river discharge scenarios.  More detailed validation of velocity profiles within the tainter gate and roller gate bays was conducted by comparing the CFD results with a physical model study (Markussen and Wilhelms, 1987).  The results of this comparison are available in the Supplementary Data in Zielinski et al. (2018).  The CFD model used in this study used the same modelling set-up as Zielinski et al. (2018) including software, mesh size, numerical solvers, and turbulence closure.  We have added additional language to the Methods section (L172-L176) describing that while the CFD results could not be explicitly validated with field data, as the modelled conditions was hypothetical, the CFD set-up was validated for the Zielinski et al. (2018) modelling and is expected to resolve the major hydraulic features near an LD.

 

Markussen, J. V., Wilhelms, S.C., 1987. Scour Protection for Lock and Dams 2-10, Upper Mississippi River. Hydraulic Model Investigation. Technical Report HL-87-4. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.

 

Q3. Line 186, “All velocities are measured in body length per second (BL.s)”. All velocities (e.g., Uf) or only for Us and Ums?

A3. Done L196-198; L291-293.

 

Q4. Line 185, Us is already defined, do not need to define here.

A4. Done.

 

Q5. Line 491, Discussion: The authors may include some insight for future research.

A5. Done. L534-538.