Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution Discharge and Water Quality Evaluation in a Small Basin of the Upper Reaches of Lijiang River
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter my evaluation of the manuscript (Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution discharge and water quality evaluation in a small basin of the upper reaches of Lijiang River) in Water 2022, 14, x. https://doi.org/10.3390, I think the authors still need to re-work and improve the manuscript, before it can be further considered for publication. In particular, there are many sentences appear to be clumsy and not precise. Below are some selected examples of obvious concerns.
1. This study is a monitoring case for the year 2016. What about the state of the river at the present time. Try to point that out in comparison at the present time so that you can benefit from this study.
2. The abstract section has not been answered truly and completely. The abstract section needs to complete with more information. The abstract should be improved.
3. In line 161, what does m3 mean?
4. Adjust the parentheses in equation 2.
5. Referring to the sub-basin collection sites with symbols in this research is tiring. In Table 1, indicate the names of the stations with the addition of lat & long.
6. In Figure No. 7 and Table No. 2, define Monitoring point.
7. In table 2, please add standard value of water quality identification.
8. Lines 222-224 need to reference.
9. In lines 269-270, what exactly do you mean by this sentence.
10. Lines 294-295 and 320 320 need to reference.
11. All photos should be improved.
12. The discussion and results section has not been answered truly and completely. Discussion section was not written clearly. Result section was not written clearly. More explain about details of result. The discussion section should give an interpretation of the significance of the results obtained with reference to similar works done by other authors.
13. The conclusion section was not written marginal. So, it should be improved.
14. Comments on the Quality of English Language
Overall, the English language is good, but sentences overloaded with repeated words are common.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Extensive editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe issues contained in the article: "Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution discharge and water quality evaluation in a small basin of the upper reaches of Lijiang River" are important in the context of the water deficit caused by its poor quality and eutrophication of aquatic environment. The paper submitted for review is interesting, but requires some corrections and additions.
General remarks:
(1) In chapter 2, explain why the research period covered only 9 months (May-December), and not the hydrological year.
(2) The paragraph in line 113-121 it is worth supplementing with information about the average doses of nitrogen and phosphorus used to fertilize farmland, in kg/hm2.
(3) It is advisable to supplement Chapter 3 Results and Discussion with an analysis of the potential causes and sources of fluctuations in the nutrient load (N, P) delivered to the river during the research period and what are the potential causes and sources of water quality fluctuations at each measurement points and subsequent months of the research period.
(4) It is advisable to supplement the discussion with a comparison of the results obtained by the authors with those of other authors, researching the impact of nutrients on the aquatic environment. Articles that may be helpful:
Steinhoff-Wrześniewska, A, Strzelczyk, M., Helis, M., Paszkiewicz-Jasińska, A., Gruss Ł., Pulikowski, K., Skorulski, W. Identification of catchment areas with nitrogen pollution risk for lowland river water quality. Archives of Environmental Protection, 2022, 48(2), pp.53-64. DOI:10.24425/aep.2022.140766
Orzepowski, W., Paruch, A., Pulikowski, K., Kowalczyk, T., Pokładek, R. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of agricultural water resources under variable climatic conditions of Silesian Lowlands (Southwest Poland) , Agricultural Water Management, 2014, 138, pp.45-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.02.012
Detailed remarks:
(1) Keywords with more than 2 words are too long and require correction. It is worth adding the word "nutrients".
(2) Line 37-40, The first two sentences are the same.
(3) Figure 1. There is a mistake in the name "Xigan cannl", it should be "Xigan Canal". In the legend: Elevation (m) contains Chinese marks. It is worth marking on the map where the upstream, midstream and downstream, which Figure 2 refers to.
(4) Complete the paragraph with information which the sub-basin is classified as Upper reaches, Middle reaches, Lower reaches, or add a reference to table 2, which contains this information.
(5) Figure 5. The axis of the chart with months, repeated twice 11th month, November
(6) Figures 2-5, 7 are of poor quality, partially blurred, probably due to too high .JPG compression.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present for.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article can be published in present form.
