Impact of the City on the Rapid Increase in the Runoff and Transport of Suspended and Dissolved Solids During Rainfall—The Example of the Silnica River (Kielce, Poland)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Summary The study investigates the impact of urbanised areas in rapid increase in runoff and transport of suspended solids and dissolved solids. Broad comments Please check the English in the manuscript as there are a number of errors. Table 1: The term “cross-section” does not relate to a channel cross-section in this manuscript. The term cross-section should be replaced with towns or outlets, as these are the points of interest which are the downstream locations of the sub-catchments. Please change this within the rest of the manuscript. River drop – a more suitable term would be “channel slope” Figure 4 – How were the hydrographs in Figure 4 generated?

Author Response

Thank you for reading the manuscript carefully and providing constructive suggestions and comments to improve it. Our answers to comments are provided below.

Comment #1

Please check the English in the manuscript as there are a number of errors.

We have also followed the requests to check and correct typos, phrasing, figure and table captions, as well as texts and legends in figures and tables. The manuscipt after the correction was verified linguistically by a specialist (https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english). We send a translation certificate in the attachment.

Comment #2

Table 1: The term “cross-section” does not relate to a channel cross-section in this manuscript. The term cross-section should be replaced with towns or outlets, as these are the points of interest which are the downstream locations of the sub-catchments. Please change this within the rest of the manuscript. River drop – a more suitable term would be “channel slope”

The term “cross-section” has been replaced with “outlet” throughout the manuscript.

In Table 2 the term “river drop” has been changed to “channel slope”.

 

Comment #3

Figure 4 – How were the hydrographs in Figure 4 generated?

 Indeed, too little space in the research methodology has been devoted to the description of stationary pluvial and hydrological research carried out in the Silnica catchment and the methodology of the hydrographs construction.

We have completed the methodological part of the manuscript.

The sentence (Line 156-158): “They included the recording of precipitation depth (recording rain gauge) and water level (floating gauge) in five hydrometric cross-sections on the Silnica.”

was changed to:

“Field measurements (precipitation depth was measured with a recording rain gauge; the water level was measured with a floating gauge) were conducted continuously at five hydrometric stations on the Silnica river, and the results were analysed in 1-hour intervals (14, 15… UT).”

The fluvial research was conducted in identical time intervals (see Line 165), and we presented the results graphically on Figure 4, using an identical description of the X-axis (hour, day) on all charts.

Reviewer 2 Report

I reccomend accept article in the present form

Author Response

Thank you very much for reading the manuscript carefully and for expressing your good opinion

 

Yours sincerely

 

Tadeusz Ciupa and Roman Suligowski

Reviewer 3 Report

Review of Ciupa and Suligowski

 

This paper is very good.  It uses two flood days to discuss the flow through a particular small river basin in an area which has an urban core.  It points out the importance of planning correctly for urban streamflow.

 

I don’t exactly understand what the geographical names are.  Are they subregions or are they boundary lines.  And are the areas stated the regions or the regions upstream of these boundary lines?

 

The examples given are of two flood event days, which are only a few days apart.  Would it be interesting to make an analysis of a more usual type of rainfall day?

There are some minor issues with the English.  Can they have a native speaker review/correct the manuscript.

Author Response

We thank for the effort and the time spend on this manuscript.

Thank you very much for putting forward a number of proposals for improving it. The manuscript after the corrections was verified linguistically by a specialist (https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english). We send a translation certificate in the attachment.

Below we present detailed responses to the following comments.

Comment #1

I don’t exactly understand what the geographical names are.  Are they subregions or are they boundary lines? And are the areas stated the regions or the regions upstream of these boundary lines?

In the area of the Silnica river catchment five sub-catchments have been distinguished.  They represent various land use (at outlets: Dąbrowa, Piaski, Jesionowa, Pakosz, Białogon). Their names refer the outlets locations within the city districts. A revision has been made in the manuscript text by replacing the term "cross-section" with the term "outlet".

Comment #2

The examples given are of two flood event days, which are only a few days apart.  Would it be interesting to make an analysis of a more usual type of rainfall day?

Stationary hydrological and fluvial studies in the Silnica river catchment were conducted for several years, also during floods of various genesis.

The paper presents the runoff and fluvial transport characteristics during two large, and at the same time typical, rainfall floods in terms of their course, which occurred in this small catchment in July 2001. It was an exceptional month with the greatest monthly and daily precipitation totals (in the 1953-2019 period). The obtained results can be and are already used in the spatial planning of Kielce, especially in the area of developing hydrotechnical documentation and organizing a flood protection actions.

Yours sincerely

Tadeusz Ciupa and Roman Suligowski

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for updating the manuscript with reviewers' suggestions and using a professional English editor. The manuscript reads much better now.