Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Appraisal of Environmental Health and Ecohydrology of Free-Flowing Aghanashini River, Karnataka, India

Water 2022, 14(6), 977; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14060977

by T. V. Ramachandra^1,2,3,*

, Vinay Shivamurthy^1,4,5, Asulabha K. Subramanian¹, Sincy Varghese¹, Bharath Setturu¹ and Bharath H. Aithal^1,4

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Water 2022, 14(6), 977; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14060977

Submission received: 20 January 2022 / Revised: 7 March 2022 / Accepted: 16 March 2022 / Published: 20 March 2022

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Effects of Vegetation on Rainfall)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments

I previously reviewed an early version of the manuscript entitled 'Eco-hydrological Appraisal with Environmental Quality of Freshwater Ecosystems - Aghanashini River, Karnataka, India', in which Ramachandra and colleagues investigated the eco-hydrological footprint of the Aghanashini river basin using both satellite and field data.
This time, in their introduction the authors have correctly defined the main objective of the manuscript: to assess the eco-hydrological footprint of the Aghanashini river basin at the sub-catchment level. This aim, in my opinion, is reached, but some minor flaws in the manuscript organization still persist.
Materials and Methods section received some relevant and positive improvements, while the Result and Discussion section in my opinion remained too long, with a descriptive part that should be reduced, and out of sync with M&M (3 subsections versus 8 subsections). By contrast, despite that long section the actual discussion part is little developed. For example, in the introduction, the authors declared that they wish that their outcomes could help the appropriate mitigation measures to maintain river basins' ecological and hydrological integrity. Why don't they discuss this aspect, clearly highlighting and presenting possibile concrete measures?
For the above-mentioned reasons, I suggest the acceptance of the manuscript only after a major revision of the Results and Discussion part.

Minor and specific point-by-point comments follow:

L59-60. [...] Roots of vegetation help provide habitat [...]. Please check the sentence.
L62. replace 'ageand' with 'age end'
Figure 1. replace 'Kilometers' with 'km' or 'kilometers' in the scale bars. Replace sq.km with the SI units abbreviation for the unit of area.
Figure 2. I still think the figure is not very informative and should be removed or at least it should be rethought. For example: why are the arrows of different colors? What kind of information do the arrows provide? Why is the 'Ecology' box different from the others? Why are there only 5 elements inside the 'Hydrological Assessment' box, while in the manuscript in section 2.2.2 there is a different list of factors? Why are there some labels next to the arrows? What does 'Priorotised catchment' means? Why is the 'Data collection' label included in a box? id:: 6202dd09-fe2f-44d5-8420-0cb0a2615e82
Figure 6. Please explain in the caption the meaning of A, B, C, D items. All abbreviations must be fully described. Why are there in the legend the labels C and D, even if they do not appear on the map?
Figure 7. include tags A) and B) and replace Kilometers with km. Figure 6 and Fig7b seem to provide the same information. Perhaps, figure 6 could be omitted.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Reviewer 3

- Comments

I previously reviewed an early version of the manuscript entitled 'Eco-hydrological Appraisal with Environmental Quality of Freshwater Ecosystems - Aghanashini River, Karnataka, India', in which Ramachandra and colleagues investigated the eco-hydrological footprint of the Aghanashini river basin using both satellite and field data.
This time, in their introduction the authors have correctly defined the main objective of the manuscript: to assess the eco-hydrological footprint of the Aghanashini river basin at the sub-catchment level. This aim, in my opinion, is reached, but some minor flaws in the manuscript organization still persist.
Materials and Methods section received some relevant and positive improvements, while the Result and Discussion section in my opinion remained too long, with a descriptive part that should be reduced, and out of sync with M&M (3 subsections versus 8 subsections). By contrast, despite that long section the actual discussion part is little developed. For example, in the introduction, the authors declared that they wish that their outcomes could help the appropriate mitigation measures to maintain river basins' ecological and hydrological integrity. Why don't they discuss this aspect, clearly highlighting and presenting possibile concrete measures?

Authors: Thanks, revised accordingly
- For the above-mentioned reasons, I suggest the acceptance of the manuscript only after a major revision of the Results and Discussion part.

- Minor and specific point-by-point comments follow:

L59-60. [...] Roots of vegetation help provide habitat [...]. Please check the sentence.

Authors: Thanks, revised accordingly

replace 'ageand' with 'age end'

Authors: Thanks, revised

Figure 1. replace 'Kilometers' with 'km' or 'kilometers' in the scale bars. Replace sq.km with the SI units abbreviation for the unit of area.

Authors: Thanks, revised accordingly

Figure 2. I still think the figure is not very informative and should be removed or at least it should be rethought. For example: why are the arrows of different colors? What kind of information do the arrows provide? Why is the 'Ecology' box different from the others? Why are there only 5 elements inside the 'Hydrological Assessment' box, while in the manuscript in section 2.2.2 there is a different list of factors? Why are there some labels next to the arrows? What does 'Priorotised catchment' means? Why is the 'Data collection' label included in a box? id::

Response: included as Supplementary Figure.

As the figure illustrates the protocol of analyses, we have included data collection

Water quality is assessed in the select streams chosen based on catchment conditions.

Figure 6. Please explain in the caption the meaning of A, B, C, D items. All abbreviations must be fully described. Why are there in the legend the labels C and D, even if they do not appear on the map?
Figure 7. include tags A) and B) and replace Kilometers with km. Figure 6 and Fig7b seem to provide the same information. Perhaps, figure 6 could be omitted.

Authors: Removed figure 6 and revised Figure 7 as suggested

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General comment:

The manuscript “Eco-hydrological Appraisal with Environmental Quality of Freshwater Ecosystems – Aghanashini River, Karnataka, India” brings useful information about the land-use dynamics, flow dynamics, hydrologic regime, and water quality of the Aghanashini riverine ecosystem. The results are interesting, and the authors showed that burgeoning anthropogenic activities resulted in the loss of contiguous interior forest cover, leading to forest fragmentation and the decline of ecologically sensitive habitats and the non-forest area has increased to 49.34%. The authors also assessed the eco-hydrological footprint of the Aghanashini river basin at the sub-catchment level, considering various societal demands, ecological needs, water availability, and assessment of water quality. The reviewer believed that the present study is interesting and potentially could contribute to the research field, however, there are some concerns and questions that require be addressed to clarity and improve the present version.

Specific comments:

Title: Authors may revise the title that should be more comprehensive, informative, and relevant to the major findings as well as represents the manuscript text.
The introduction section largely failed to provide concise background information. Introduction shortening suggested. Please conder removing or transferring the last paragraphs of the introduction (lines 102-107).
In the materials and methods section, it would be better if the authors transfer the “Table 1. Details of data with sources” in Supplementary Materials.
The discussion could be more focused, and the authors should discuss their findings from multiple angles.
In the conclusion, major limitations of the present study were not mentioned and opportunities to inform future research were not properly addressed.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Specific comments:

Title: Authors may revise the title that should be more comprehensive, informative, and relevant to the major findings as well as represents the manuscript text.

Response: The endeavor assesses ecohydrology with environmental quality. Hence, revised as Appraisal of Environmental health and ecohydrology of free-flowing Aghanashini River, Karnataka, India

The introduction section largely failed to provide concise background information. Introduction shortening suggested. Please conder removing or transferring the last paragraphs of the introduction (lines 102-107).

Response: revised and removed redundant information

In the materials and methods section, it would be better if the authors transfer the “Table 1. Details of data with sources” in Supplementary Materials.

As per the suggestion, we added table 1 as supplementary materials (Supplementary table S1).

Table S1. Details of data with sources

Data details	Source
Multi Temporal Optical Remote Sensing Data: 1973 and 2018 from Landsat 1 and Landsat 8	United States Geological Survey (USGS) Downloaded from [47] https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/nli/landsat/landsat-data-access?qt-science_support_page_related_con=0#qt-science_support_page_related_con
Training data – for remote sensing data classification (LU analysis)	Collected from field using pre-calibrated handheld Global Poistioning System [GPS]
Topographic Sheet 1: 50000: For delineation of catchments and administrative boundaries	Survey of India [43] http://www.soinakshe.uk.gov.in/
Virtual Globe data: Google Earth and Bhuvan	Google Earth [54], https://www.google.com/intl/en_in/earth/ Bhuvan, National Remote Sensing Centre [56] http://bhuvan.nrsc.gov.in/
Long term Rainfall data : 1901 to 2010 across multiple rain gauge stations within and outside the catchment	India Meteorological Department (IMD) [49], http://www.imd.gov.in/pages/services_hydromet.php Karnataka State Natural Disaster Monitoring Centre (KSNDMC), https://www.ksndmc.org/default.aspx Global Precipitation Climatology Centre (GPCC) [48] https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.cpc.globalprecip.html
Evapotranspiration (AET)	Actual Evapotranspiration (AET) using modified Hargreaves Method [56] AET = PET * K_c where K_c is the evapotranspiration coefficient based on land uses (Built-up (0.15), Water (1.05), Open space (0.30), Evergreen forest (0.95), Scrub and grassland (0.80), Forest Plantation (0.85), Agriculture Plantation (0.80), Deciduous forest (0.85)), and PET: Potential evapotranspiration PET = 0.0023 * (R_A/λ) * * Tmax: Maximum temperature; Tmin: Minimum temperature; λ: latent heat of vapourisation of water (2.501 MJ/kg) and R_A: Extra-terrestrial radiation (MJ/m2/day) R_A is as per Indian Agriculture Research Institute, http://www.iari.res.in, http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/paper/prospects_of_solar_energy/analysis.htm http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ac.in/energy/water/paper/ETR91/SCR48_ETR91_CESTVR_Yettinhole-final.pdf http://www.fao.org/docrep/X0490E/x0490e07.htm#latent heat of vaporization (l) [51]
Temperature Data: Long term average (1950 – 2010)	WorldClim [52], http://www.worldclim.org
Population Census: 1991, 2001, 2011	Census of India [45], http://www.censusindia.gov.in
Domestic water demand	The amount of water required per person includes water needed for bathing, washing, drinking, and other basic needs. Domestic water demand is assessed as the function of water requirements per person per day, population, and season (Summer: 150 litres per person per day (lpcd), Monsoon: 125 lpcd, and winter: 135 lpcd).
Livestock Census: 2012	District at a Glance [50] Directorate of Economics and Statistics http://des.kar.nic.in/
Livestock water demand	Livestock population details were obtained from the district statistics office [50]. The water requirement for different animals was quantified based on the interviews: cattle (summer: 100 lpcd, monsoon: 70 lpcd, and winter: 85 lpcd), buffalo (summer: 105 lpcd, monsoon: 75 lpcd, and winter: 95 lpcd), sheep, and goats (summer: 22 lpcd, monsoon: 15 lpcd, and winter: 20 lpcd)
Agriculture Cropping Pattern and Water Requirement	Department of Agriculture [50] Directorate of Economics and Statistics, http://des.kar.nic.in/ https://eands.dacnet.nic.in/ The crop water requirement for various crops was estimated considering their growth phase and details of the cropping pattern in the catchment (based on the data compiled from household surveys and publications such as the district at a glance, Department of Agriculture [50]).

The discussion could be more focused, and the authors should discuss their findings from multiple angles.

Response: Major findings of the study are highlighted and the discussion is refined by removing the redundant information

In the conclusion, major limitations of the present study were not mentioned and opportunities to inform future research were not properly addressed.

Response: The research outcome helps evolve the appropriate mitigation measures to maintain river basins' ecological and hydrological integrity to sustain water. Also, it helps in communicating with the public and decision-makers to implement prudent management of the catchment through participatory approaches involving all stakeholders.

The current study is based on monitoring a free flowing river in the Western Ghats, with the hot moist sub-humid climate regime (west flowing river with a catchment of 1449 km²), which is to be validated for the larger spatial extent river catchments covering diverse agroclimatic regime. The next phase of the research focuses on applying this protocol for Krishna river with the wider agroclimatic regime and across administrative regions.

Reviewer 2

Specific comments:

Title: Authors may revise the title that should be more comprehensive, informative, and relevant to the major findings as well as represents the manuscript text.

Response: The endeavor assesses ecohydrology with environmental quality. Hence, revised as Appraisal of Environmental health and ecohydrology of free-flowing Aghanashini River, Karnataka, India

The introduction section largely failed to provide concise background information. Introduction shortening suggested. Please conder removing or transferring the last paragraphs of the introduction (lines 102-107).

Response: revised and removed redundant information

In the materials and methods section, it would be better if the authors transfer the “Table 1. Details of data with sources” in Supplementary Materials.

As per the suggestion, we added table 1 as supplementary materials (Supplementary table S1).

Table S1. Details of data with sources

Data details	Source
Multi Temporal Optical Remote Sensing Data: 1973 and 2018 from Landsat 1 and Landsat 8	United States Geological Survey (USGS) Downloaded from [47] https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/nli/landsat/landsat-data-access?qt-science_support_page_related_con=0#qt-science_support_page_related_con
Training data – for remote sensing data classification (LU analysis)	Collected from field using pre-calibrated handheld Global Poistioning System [GPS]
Topographic Sheet 1: 50000: For delineation of catchments and administrative boundaries	Survey of India [43] http://www.soinakshe.uk.gov.in/
Virtual Globe data: Google Earth and Bhuvan	Google Earth [54], https://www.google.com/intl/en_in/earth/ Bhuvan, National Remote Sensing Centre [56] http://bhuvan.nrsc.gov.in/
Long term Rainfall data : 1901 to 2010 across multiple rain gauge stations within and outside the catchment	India Meteorological Department (IMD) [49], http://www.imd.gov.in/pages/services_hydromet.php Karnataka State Natural Disaster Monitoring Centre (KSNDMC), https://www.ksndmc.org/default.aspx Global Precipitation Climatology Centre (GPCC) [48] https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.cpc.globalprecip.html
Evapotranspiration (AET)	Actual Evapotranspiration (AET) using modified Hargreaves Method [56] AET = PET * K_c where K_c is the evapotranspiration coefficient based on land uses (Built-up (0.15), Water (1.05), Open space (0.30), Evergreen forest (0.95), Scrub and grassland (0.80), Forest Plantation (0.85), Agriculture Plantation (0.80), Deciduous forest (0.85)), and PET: Potential evapotranspiration PET = 0.0023 * (R_A/λ) * * Tmax: Maximum temperature; Tmin: Minimum temperature; λ: latent heat of vapourisation of water (2.501 MJ/kg) and R_A: Extra-terrestrial radiation (MJ/m2/day) R_A is as per Indian Agriculture Research Institute, http://www.iari.res.in, http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/paper/prospects_of_solar_energy/analysis.htm http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ac.in/energy/water/paper/ETR91/SCR48_ETR91_CESTVR_Yettinhole-final.pdf http://www.fao.org/docrep/X0490E/x0490e07.htm#latent heat of vaporization (l) [51]
Temperature Data: Long term average (1950 – 2010)	WorldClim [52], http://www.worldclim.org
Population Census: 1991, 2001, 2011	Census of India [45], http://www.censusindia.gov.in
Domestic water demand	The amount of water required per person includes water needed for bathing, washing, drinking, and other basic needs. Domestic water demand is assessed as the function of water requirements per person per day, population, and season (Summer: 150 litres per person per day (lpcd), Monsoon: 125 lpcd, and winter: 135 lpcd).
Livestock Census: 2012	District at a Glance [50] Directorate of Economics and Statistics http://des.kar.nic.in/
Livestock water demand	Livestock population details were obtained from the district statistics office [50]. The water requirement for different animals was quantified based on the interviews: cattle (summer: 100 lpcd, monsoon: 70 lpcd, and winter: 85 lpcd), buffalo (summer: 105 lpcd, monsoon: 75 lpcd, and winter: 95 lpcd), sheep, and goats (summer: 22 lpcd, monsoon: 15 lpcd, and winter: 20 lpcd)
Agriculture Cropping Pattern and Water Requirement	Department of Agriculture [50] Directorate of Economics and Statistics, http://des.kar.nic.in/ https://eands.dacnet.nic.in/ The crop water requirement for various crops was estimated considering their growth phase and details of the cropping pattern in the catchment (based on the data compiled from household surveys and publications such as the district at a glance, Department of Agriculture [50]).

The discussion could be more focused, and the authors should discuss their findings from multiple angles.

Response: Major findings of the study are highlighted and the discussion is refined by removing the redundant information

In the conclusion, major limitations of the present study were not mentioned and opportunities to inform future research were not properly addressed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Review of a manuscript submitted to the Water MDPI, entitled “Eco-hydrological Appraisal with Environmental Quality of Freshwater Ecosystems – Aghanashini River, Karnataka, India”, by Ramachandra T. V., Vinay S, Asulabha K, Sincy V, Bharath S., Bharath H Aithal.

The Objective of the research, in the reviewed work is is to assess the eco-hydrological footprint of the Aghanashini river basin at the sub-catchment level, considering various societal demands, ecological needs, and water availability. Watershed management is an ever-evolving practice involving the management of land, water, biota, and other resources in a defined area for ecological, social, and economic purposes. A watershed is also a hydrological response unit, a biophysical unit, and a holistic ecosystem in terms of the materials, energy, and information that flow through it. Watershed management is the process of organizing and guiding land, water, and other natural resources used in a watershed to provide the appropriate goods and services while mitigating the impact on the soil and watershed resources. It involves socio-economic, human-institutional, and biophysical inter-relationships among soil, water, and land use and the connection between upland and downstream areas. In essence, it is resource management with the watershed as the basic organizing unit.

Quality of life and health more and more criticalnowadays, due to increasing humanand urban populations, aging waterinfrastructure, decreasing resourcesand their quality and super-imposing global changes. Fundamental processes such aswater circulation, matter and energyflow are extremely intense.Regulating interrelations amongthem following the ecohydrologyprinciples, can reduce environ mentaldegradation, provide affordablecost-efficient solutions to waterissues, enhance the capacity ofecosystems against human impactand assure ecosystem services.

The protection of environmental flows in rivers is a new practice developed over recent decades in response to the decline of ecological condition, function and biodiversity of rivers produced by human modification to river flow regimes. Management of environmental flows includes the stages of planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation , and requires consideration of both technical and social elements for a successful outcome.

These assessment are used to establish: the level of human impact on river, estuary, groundwater-dependent, and wetland ecosystems; their environmental water requirements; and potential environmental risks if environmental water allocation scenarios fall short of the required environmental wate.

Overall the manuscript is not well organized and written and thus difficult to read.Nevertheless, Is an interesting paper with a clear enough purpose within its limited aims. The objective of the study has been met, and research findings have been thoroughly discussed. The paper title match its contents, the key words and the abstract characterize the contents of the paper sufficiently, the objective of the paper formulated correctly. Chapters: 2. Materials and Methods and 3. Results and Discussion require reorganization. The assumptions formulated in the objective been achieved, the data contained in tables and figures represent the appropriate, understandable documentation of the contents of the paper (some data - I suggest moving to the supplement), the discussion of results correct and sufficient, the items of literature included in the paper sufficient and adequate to the subject of the paper, the conclusions formulated correctly and justified by the contents and results of the study. I would support the publication of this study following a reorganization of the text. Such information as presented here can be usually only obtained with a rather high effort (really nicely accomplished by the authors) and/or are sometimes even not accessible or citable.

MINOR COMMENTS

Page 2, line 91-93 - please refer to the sources of information.

Page 4, line 140-142 – „Remote sensing data was preprocessed .....". please explain how?

Page 5, line 147-157 - please specify where the samples were taken - site map?

Page 6: 2.2.2. Assessment of hydrological footprint, ecological footprint, and eco-hydrologic footprint - in my opinion, presenting details of calculating indexes, including the following formulas: R_G; R_N, Q, Inf – redundant

Page 8: 2.2.3. Water quality assessment - in my opinion, presenting details of calculating indexes, including the following formulas: ??I; Wn, qn, K – redundant

Page 8-9 - please indicate the sampling sites

Page 9: Table 2. Category-wise land use (with accuracy assessment) and forest fragmentation extent (in percentage) - please move to the suplement

Page 11: Table 3. Sub-basin wise forests and eco-hydrological status - please move to the suplement

Page 13: Figure 7. Ecology and hydrologic regime relationships in the Aghanashini River basin - is completely incomprehensible. What the fauna / flora signature refers to (endemic taxa habitats constitute the hottest biodi versity hotspot?), which means the A, B, C, D scale (C, D is not in the figure)

Page 16: Table 4. Loadings of 17 variables extracted from PCA. - please move to the suplement

Author Response

Reviewer 3

MINOR COMMENTS

Page 2, line 91-93 - please refer to the sources of information.

Authors: Literaure are cited as per the suggestion (33, 34, 35, and 36).

Page 4, line 140-142 – „Remote sensing data was preprocessed .....". please explain how?

Authors: Included – lines 139-143

Page 5, line 147-157 - please specify where the samples were taken - site map?

Authors: Figure 2 indicates the gauging locations for assessing flow and water

Page 6: 2.2.2. Assessment of hydrological footprint, ecological footprint, and eco-hydrologic footprint - in my opinion, presenting details of calculating indexes, including the following formulas: R_G; R_N, Q, Inf – redundant

Revised accordingly

Authors: Revised by removing redundant details

Page 8: 2.2.3. Water quality assessment - in my opinion, presenting details of calculating indexes, including the following formulas: ??I; Wn, qn, K– redundant

Authors: Revised as per the suggestion.

Page 8-9 - please indicate the sampling sites

Authors: Figure 2 indicates sampling locations spatially and also details are provided in ines 255 - 263

Page 9: Table 2. Category-wise land use (with accuracy assessment) and forest fragmentation extent (in percentage) - please move to the supplement

Authors: Revised accordingly as per the suggestion (Supplementary table S2).

Page 11: Table 3. Sub-basin wise forests and eco-hydrological status - please move to the supplement

Authors: As per the suggestion, we added table 3 as supplementary materials (Supplementary table S3).

Table S3. Sub-basin wise forests and eco-hydrological status.

SB id	Rainfall (mm)	Area -sq.km	Total Forest	Evergreen Forest	Moist Deciduous Forest	Infiltration (mm)	AET (mm)	Eco-hydro index (EHI)
1	2073	175.0	52%	21%	31%	1305.8	1512.8	0.86
2	2960	253.3	57%	16%	41%	1993.2	1490.5	1.34
3	2370	31.2	53%	46%	7%	1589.9	1500.7	1.06
4	2931	150.1	52%	47%	5%	1922.9	1484.9	1.29
5	3561	173.1	60%	52%	8%	2463.5	1476.4	1.67
6	3753	168.4	87%	60%	28%	3038.5	1475.1	2.06
7	3425	134.1	68%	43%	25%	2489.4	1487.5	1.67
8	3169	109.7	88%	66%	22%	2550.6	1483.8	1.72
9	2944	253.7	27%	11%	16%	1803.4	1466.2	1.23

Page 13: Figure 7. Ecology and hydrologic regime relationships in the Aghanashini River basin - is completely incomprehensible. What the fauna / flora signature refers to (endemic taxa habitats constitute the hottest biodiversity hotspot?), which means the A, B, C, D scale (C, D is not in the figure)

Authors: Revised as per the suggestion7

Page 16: Table 4. Loadings of 17 variables extracted from PCA. - please move to the supplement

Authors: As per the suggestion, revised and included as Supplementary table S6.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have satisfactorily replied to all my comments and I don’t have any major criticisms in this study. A minor comment is provided below.

L63. replace "hydro-climatic condition.[22]." with "hydro-climatic condition [22]."

After this comment is resolved, the study can be published.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you. We have revised as per your suggestion

best wishes

TVR

Reviewer 3 Report

The present version of the paper, it's different from the previous one. Raised shortcomings of the previous version of the article have been removed. I think that the article is valuable, by diagnosing the state of knowledge and indicating the direction of further research. I think that the article should be published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for the positive suggestions and efforts

best wishes

tvr

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

In their manuscript entitled 'Eco-hydrological Appraisal with Environmental Quality of Freshwater Ecosystems' Ramachandra and colleagues investigated the eco-hydrological footprint of the Aghanashini river basin using both satellite and field data. Moreover, they claimed that the research outcome helps to evolve the mitigation measures needed to maintain the ecological and hydrological integrity of the Aghanashini basin and its sub-basins. Nevertheless, in their introduction the authors did not define a clear purpose of the manuscript and, in my opinion, it is difficult to appreciate the main aim of the work beyond the purely descriptive aspects. The title of the manuscript is also too unfocused and should include a reference to the study area to highlight the scope of the research.

In addition, the Materials and Methods section and the Result and Discussion section are out of sync with methods often described in the Result section. The Results section is also too long, with descriptive parts that should be reduced (e.g. lines 311-340).
Finally and foremost the Discussion section lacks a clear discussion of the results and how they can be interpreted in the perspective of previous studies and current international literature. The mitigation measures suggested by the authors should be clearly highlighted and presented, with a mention of future directions.

For the above-mentioned reasons, I suggest the acceptance of the manuscript only after a major revision.

Major and minor comments:
Line 13 and following: I would recommend not using **etc.** in the manuscript. The topics of the paper are very specific and do not rely on the readers to add things on their own.

Introduction section: define the purpose(s) of the work and introduce the main problems and threats of the Aghanashini basin and its sub-basins.

Line 39: remove the adjective 'immense'.

Figure 1: the figure is unnecessary and should be removed.

Line 95: I appreciated the authors love for this river but I suggest removing the adjective 'magnificent'.

Line 97 and following: replace Km with the SI symbol km.

Lines 101: replace 'Elevation ranges' with 'Elevations'.

Line 119: "These data were preprocessed to eliminate inconsistencies and errors": in what way? Could you provide more details or references?

Lines 187-196: I suggest selecting few variables as they are usually correlated each other and analysing all do not add anything relevant for the paper. Reducing these parameters would allow a better reading of the manuscript.

Table 1: include the % symbol next to the values.

Figure 4: include tags A) and B) in the figure and change Kilometers with km.

Figure 5: change Kilometers with km in the scale bar.

Line 234 and following: 'M.cum' -- I suggest the use of the abbreviation of SI units for the unit of volume.

Lines 240-242: move the sentence to an appropriate sub-section of Material and Methods section.

Lines 246-248: please rephrase the sentence to make it more readable.

Table 2: replace sq.km with the SI units abbreviation for the unit of area.

Lines 259-260: move the sentence to an appropriate sub-section of Material and Methods section.

Figure 6 and following: change Kilometers with km in the scale bar.

Lines 281-285: move the sentence to an appropriate sub-section of Material and Methods section.

Lines 308-311: move the sentence to an appropriate sub-section of Material and Methods section.

Lines 311-340: I suggest shortening this part; moreover, please consider to include the values in a table in supplementary materials.

Lines 341-356: also this part is not well readable, a table is recommended. Figure 9 is not necessary.

Lines 369-377: move the sentence to an appropriate sub-section of Material and Methods section.

Line 378: please check '(as per [92, 93].'

Lines 388-393: move the sentence to an appropriate sub-section of Material and Methods section.

Figure 11: please, remove the figure. It is not necessary.

Lines 399-413: reduce this part, making it more readable.

Lines 422-425: move the sentence to an appropriate sub-section of Material and Methods section.

Lines 435-455: Why did the authors perform two different PCA analyses on the same data?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for useful suggestions. we have revised the MS considering all suggestions

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

It's a very interesting work and would be useful for the scientific community, however, there are some major issues that need to be addressed before publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We have received comments of 2 reviewers and revised the MS accordingly

Reviewer 3 Report

I think the work presented here is of great value. It's complex and complete. However I think it needs some adjustments before submission.

There are many metrics for example used by authors, which even when described in the text become confusing. I think a summary table would be best suited to guide the reader through materials and methods that are quite extensive. For example, for land uses - indicators used, calculation and/or reference; for EHI - indicators used, calculation and/or reference.

Figure 1 is not very illuminating. Not all parameters contribute equally to ecosystem services. I think it should be rethought.

Please check the entire document very carefully in terms of language. There are several errors, capital letters in the middle of sentences, avoid excessive use of etc. Also, why use bioaccumulation and then describe bio-magnification? Please standardize throughout the text. Also, bio-geo-chemical, the correct form is biogeochemical.

Legends miss accuracy. Figures, tables, graphs legends or others must be self-explanatory. All abbreviations must be fully described. Please revise all your legends.

For figure 2: where was data collected? For instance, ArcGIS? if yes

where did the authors went up to pick the shape files? This must be referenced. Lines 105-106 must described briefly main characteristics not just only list them.

Figure 9: what do the different symbols represent? I assume that having a red circle within a rectangle is different than just having the circle. This is not clear.

Also, the MS has many figures. Please consider to put some in supplements or integrate them in single images (eg. Figure 12 and 13 could be in the same panel! Also legends must be verified. )

Figure 10: the use of patterns difficlts the graphic reading. A grade of shadows could easily fix it. Or even a grade of green to red, where the first would represent high quality streams, and the last poor quality and would be readily readable by the public.

Line 88-90: I do not think that this is an objective of the work. Rather it is an additional an extension of the work, where these data can be integrated. Still no detailed section is made in the discussion regarding this topic. Rather reformulate or add the information missing.

Line 170-171: the review literature published. Reference is needed.

Line 177-184: Are the points presented anywhere in a map? They should.

Line 221-222: This information should be in materials and methods.

Line 341-342: This information should be described in detail before in materials and methods.

Line 369-370: This calculation should be better explained. And in materials and methods.

Author Response

Thank you for suggestions. we have revised the MS accordingly

best wishes

authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have done a good job in addressing all comments and the manuscript substantially improved.

A caveat remains regarding the title of the manuscript, which in my opinion should include a reference to the study area to highlight the scope of the research.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

The authors have done a good job in addressing all comments and the manuscript substantially improved.

Response: Thank you for encouraging words

A small caveat remains regarding the title of the manuscript, which in my opinion should include a reference to the study area to highlight the scope of the research.

Response: We have implemented the suggestion and revised the title as - Eco-hydrological Appraisal with Environmental Quality of Freshwater Ecosystems – Aghanashini River, Karnataka, India

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Most of my previous comments have been inadequately addressed in the revision. While the authors added some citations, their actual discussion of previous work on land use dynamics remains far too narrow and too many contributions are ignored. The authors also rely too much on their previous work (and that of their immediate colleagues) rather than the work of the broader community. Thus, the present work continues to lack the context that is required to properly interpret the results. Also, too many assertions remain unjustified or far too broad.

The objective remains unfocused. What is the hypothesis that is to be tested? The authors offer no scientific reason that EHI need to be considered, yet they assert that this is the primary goal and contribution that they make. The computation of ecohydrological indices should differ over long time scales than what has been considered previously? What is the scientific contribution of this perspective? I believe there are reasons to consider such a perspective, but the authors do not provide them.

Because the objectives are unfocused, the experiments remain potentially ill-posed. It is not clear what the parameter ranges are meant to represent. In some cases, those ranges are very broad.
My biggest concern is the conclusions. The conclusions are stated far too broadly. For those reasons, they are therefore unjustified. It is not clear how these very basic analysis will help or can be used in the real world or extended to other conditions.

Author Response

In the Introduction I would recommend few lines to add since this study also focusses on
hydrological regime. Authors have missed discussing the important aspect of incorporation of
the effect of landuse on runoff thereby influencing quality in different scenarios. There is a
vast literature on this I would like to suggest few lines following to this which author should
Landuse can have a significant effect on hydrological fluxes due to variations in the
physical characteristics of the land surface, soil, and vegetation; such as the roughness,
albedo, infiltration capacity, root depth, architectural resistance, leaf area index (LAI), and
stomatal conductance (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-020-02630-4;
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136449).

Thank you for useful suggestions.

Response: included lines [50-64] and hydrologic regime in lines 186- 212 as per the suggestion

Line 100-101 provide a citation to support the statement.

Response: cited a relevant publication

Reference 44 has been changed “University of Agriculture Sciences, E-Krishi [WWW Document]. 2020.URL: http://e-krishiuasb.karnataka.gov.in/Weather/ViewWeatherData.aspx?depID=10&QueryID=0.”

From Figure 2 authors need to clearly state the source of soil map obtained whether it from a global soil database or national one.

Response: Soil Map was obtained from National Bureau of Soil Survey (Reference 46) and is explained in section 2.1, line 107 - 108

Line 113 and 114 what were the data collected and used from remote sensing mention in the tabular form with their sources and time period. As they have mentioned several datasets but with citation unclear please provide their proper source. In addition, provide the equation utilised for calculation of extra-terrestrial radiation. Which type of remote sensing data is used mention in detail?

Response: Table 1 added for describing the data used

Table 1: Details of data with sources

Data details	Source
Multi Temporal Optical Remote Sensing Data: 1973 and 2018 from Landsat 1 and Landsat 8	United States Geological Survey (USGS) Downloaded from [47] https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/nli/landsat/landsat-data-access?qt-science_support_page_related_con=0#qt-science_support_page_related_con
Training data – for remote sensing data classification (LU analysis)	Collected from field using pre-calibrated handheld Global Poistioning System [GPS]
Topographic Sheet 1: 50000: For delineation of catchments and administrative boundaries	Survey of India [43] http://www.soinakshe.uk.gov.in/
Virtual Globe data: Google Earth and Bhuvan	Google Earth [54], https://www.google.com/intl/en_in/earth/ Bhuvan, National Remote Sensing Centre [56] http://bhuvan.nrsc.gov.in/
Long term Rainfall data : 1901 to 2010 across multiple rain gauge stations within and outside the catchment	India Meteorological Department (IMD) [49], http://www.imd.gov.in/pages/services_hydromet.php Karnataka State Natural Disaster Monitoring Centre (KSNDMC), https://www.ksndmc.org/default.aspx Global Precipitation Climatology Centre (GPCC) [48] https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.cpc.globalprecip.html
Evapotranspiration (AET)	Actual Evapotranspiration (AET) using modified Hargreaves Method [56] AET = PET * K_c where K_c is the evapotranspiration coefficient based on land uses (Built-up (0.15), Water (1.05), Open space (0.30), Evergreen forest (0.95), Scrub and grassland (0.80), Forest Plantation (0.85), Agriculture Plantation (0.80), Deciduous forest (0.85)), and PET: Potential evapotranspiration PET = 0.0023 * (R_A/λ) * * Tmax: Maximum temperature; Tmin: Minimum temperature; λ: latent heat of vapourisation of water (2.501 MJ/kg) and R_A: Extra-terrestrial radiation (MJ/m2/day) R_A is as per Indian Agriculture Research Institute, http://www.iari.res.in, http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/paper/prospects_of_solar_energy/analysis.htm http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ac.in/energy/water/paper/ETR91/SCR48_ETR91_CESTVR_Yettinhole-final.pdf http://www.fao.org/docrep/X0490E/x0490e07.htm#latent heat of vaporization (l) [51]
Temperature Data: Long term average (1950 – 2010)	WorldClim [52], http://www.worldclim.org
Population Census: 1991, 2001, 2011	Census of India [45], http://www.censusindia.gov.in
Domestic water demand	Water required per person includes water needed for bathing, washing, drinking, and other basic needs. Domestic water demand is assessed as the function of water requirement per person per day, population, and season (Summer: 150 liters per person per day (lpcd), Monsoon: 125 lpcd, and winter: 135 lpcd).
Livestock Census: 2012	District at a Glance [50] Directorate of Economics and Statistics http://des.kar.nic.in/
Livestock water demand	Livestock population details were obtained from the district statistics office [50]. The water requirement for different animals was quantified based on the interviews: cattle (summer: 100 lpcd, monsoon: 70 lpcd, and winter: 85 lpcd), Buffalo (summer: 105 lpcd, monsoon: 75 lpcd, and winter: 95 lpcd), sheep and goats (summer: 22 lpcd, monsoon: 15 lpcd, and winter: 20 lpcd)
Agriculture Cropping Pattern and Water Requirement	Department of Agriculture [50] Directorate of Economics and Statistics, http://des.kar.nic.in/ https://eands.dacnet.nic.in/ The crop water requirement for various crops was estimated considering their growth phase and details of the cropping pattern in the catchment (based on the data compiled from household surveys and publications such as the district at a glance, Department of Agriculture [50]).

Line 119 what type of inconsistencies and explain in detail how the data was pre-processed.

Response: Statement rephrased Remote sensing data were preprocessed to eliminate positional errors, and geometric corrections were made using ground control points obtained from field and virtual earth databases. Radiometric corrections were made to enhance the scene radiometric properties (Contrast enhancement) for better interpretation of the data [56. 57, 58].

Line 123 can author explain augment on this statement how they have prepared landuse by using field experiments, have they not utilised remote sensing based maps.

Response:

Field investigations were carried out to using GPS to map various landscape within Aghanashini.

GPS based field data were used as training sites and land use classification was carried on the Remote Sensing data using Gaussian Maximum Likelihood method.

Land use maps were used to determine various sites for investigation of hydrological regimes.

Please refer 146-152 lines, Land use analyses involved (i) generation of false color composite (FCC) of remote sensing (RS) data (bands–green, red, and NIR). FCC helped in locating heterogeneous patches for choosing training polygons in the landscape, (ii) selection of training polygons covering 15% of the study area and polygons are uniformly distributed over the entire study area, covering all land use categories, (iii) loading these training polygons co-ordinates into pre-calibrated GPS, (vi) collection of the corresponding attribute data (land-use types) for these polygons from the ﬁeld, (iv) supplementing this information with the data from the online data portal [54] and (v) 60% of the training data has been used for classiﬁcation, and (vi) the balance is used for validation or accuracy assessment (ACA). The land use analysis was done using a supervised classification technique based on a Gaussian maximum likelihood algorithm with training data. Accuracy assessment (kappa statistics, computation of accuracies - user, producer and overall) was carried out by comparing the classification output with the field observations collected using GPS [57, 58, 59].

Line 140-141 mention in detail about this and how much was accuracy obtained in the classification

Response: Accuracy assessment (kappa statistics, computation of accuracies - user, producer and overall) was carried out by comparing the classification output with the field observations collected using GPS [57, 58, 59].

Table 2. Category-wise land use (with accuracy assessment) and forest fragmentation extent (in percentage) .

LU Category	1973	2018	Accuracy (%)				Forest fragmentation type	1973	2018
			1973		2018
			UA	PA	UA	PA
Evergreen to semi-evergreen forest	71.65	23.95	57.3	57.4	97.0	96.8	Interior Forest	66.3	17.8
Moist deciduous forest	10.26	26.11	75.9	75.9	96.6	97.0
Dry deciduous forest	0.15	0.61	82.8	82.8	98.3	97.2	Patch	0.41	3.94
Scrub forest/grass land	4.00	0.12	71.0	70.9	94.0	98.5
Forest Plantations	3.52	11.64	76.6	76.6	78.5	99.9	Transitional	2.63	8.23
Cropland	4.46	16.18	95.4	95.4	92.8	82.8
Horticulture Crops	3.63	10.39	72.8	72.8	97.0	90.2	Edge	2.54	0.93
Open fields	1.41	3.44	66.8	66.8	98.9	98.4
Built-up	0.09	4.88	83.7	83.8	98.1	92.4	Perforated	14.2	19.8
Water	0.83	2.69	63.6	63.6	89.2	98.3
Overall Accuracy (%)			89.77		91		Non-forest	13.94	49.34
Kappa			0.8		0.89

Note - UA: User accuracy, PA: Producer accuracy, LU: land use

Line 145-151 authors have mentioned about the hydrometeorogical components but no where they have mentioned in the introduction about their feedback on landuse, also there should be time series plot of all these variables to have better understanding of hydrological regime in his catchment.

Response: we have cited the relevant literature than mentioning the feedback mechanism.

Various hydrometeorological factors were estimated using spatial modelling since long term average data were considered to estimate these factors, defining time series in the current context is not in the scope of the current work. You may note that we have published a technical report highlighting the hydrologic regime with land uses and details are available at http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/water/paper/ETR133/index.html. Monthly assessment are carried out for evaluating the same. Long term monitoring (38 months) of select streams – runoff, etc. was used to determine the ecological flow requirements within the catchment.

These details are included now in Table 1

Line 147 which method of ET is utilised again please provide fundamental equations of the
important method utilised herein.

Response: Modified “Actual Evapotranspiration (AET) using modified Hargreaves Method”

Equation for ET for Hargreaves method is

AET = PET * K_c where K_c is the crop coefficient for various crops

Please refer “http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ac.in/energy/water/paper/ETR91/SCR48_ETR91_CESTVR_Yettinhole-final.pdf”

These details are included now in Table 1

Line 286-289 sentence not clear please rephrase, explain about the linkages Biodiversity,
ecology, hydrology linkages with the landscape. How the runoff characteristics changes in the catchment is not shown which can be one of the promising component in affecting the ecohydrology.

Response: Modified “Sector-wise water demand analyses reveal that water demand by agriculture and horticulture sector demand in the catchment is about 606 M.cum, while domestic water demand needs for the society is about 5.8 M.cum, and livestock water demand of 3.8 M.cum. The environmental water demand includes terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems demand. Terrestrial water demand is the water requirements of vegetation, i.e., PET AET from natural vegetation (forests), and is about 937 M.cum. Ecological flow based on field observations in Aghanashini and neighbouring Sharavati [114] is about 30% of total flows. in the Aghanashini river basin Ecological flow is about 483 M.cum (about 30% of the total flow), which this is the minimum water sustaining biota during lean seasons in the aquatic ecosystem.”

New Reference 114 added, this is in sharavathi river basin i.e., neighbouring catchment of Aghanashini. Where we emphasise upon landuse and its influence on local flow dynamics across seasons.

Variation of land use and hydrological; regime is described in figure 6

Biodiversity varies with water availability in the region, this is explained in Figure 8 – line 331 to 334

Line 451-452 it would be better to show how this affect runoff by using graphical indicators.

Response: Please refer Figure 8

Streams were classified based on the duration of water flow and quantum as perennial (with 12 months flow or A), intermittent (6-8 months flow, B or C) and seasonal (4 months during monsoon, D). The streams are perennial when its catchment is dominated by native species vegetation (> 60%). This is mainly due to infiltration or percolation in the catchment as the soil is porous with the presence of native species. Diverse microorganisms interact with plant roots and soil helps in the transfer of nutrients from the soil to plants and the soil is porous [21]. Analyses of soil sample from the catchments of perennial, intermittent streams reveal that soils in the perennial streams catchment has the highest moisture content (61.47 to 61.57%), higher nutrients (C, N and K), lower bulk density (0.50 to 0.57 g/cc). Compared to this, catchment of intermittent and seasonal streams had higher bulk density (0.87 – 1.53 g/cc) and relatively lower nutrients. Figure 6 confirms the role of native forests (contiguous or interior forests) in sustaining the water evident from the occurrence of perennial streams compared to the intermittent or seasonal streams in the catchment dominated by degraded forest patches.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Most of my previous comments have been inadequately addressed in the revision.

Article Menu

Appraisal of Environmental Health and Ecohydrology of Free-Flowing Aghanashini River, Karnataka, India

- Comments

- Minor and specific point-by-point comments follow:

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI