Changes in the Hydrological Characteristics of the Attabad Landslide-Dammed Lake on the Karakoram Highway

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines the changes in hydrological characteristics of the Attabad landslide dammed lake over the past decade after the occurrence of the landslide, focusing on lake area dynamics and sediment concentration. The suspended sediment in the barrier lake is distributed in a strip running from north to south, then northeast to southwest, with sediment concentration decreasing from the lake entrance to the dam and from the lake bank to the center. Over time, the average sediment concentration has decreased from 2010 to 2020, with higher concentrations in summer than in winter. Notably, during the 2017-2020 period, the lower-middle parts of the lake experienced higher sediment concentration, while the dam area witnessed lower concentrations, thereby reducing the sediment impact on the dam. And, the sediment content in the middle of the dammed lake is relatively high, which may lead to the formation of a new dammed dam in the middle and the division of the original dammed lake into two smaller lakes, which will affect the stability of the dammed lake.

 

1.      What is the meaning of LLSA in Fig. 5?

2.      What is the units of vertical axial in Figures 5 and 6?

3.      Figure 7 illustrates the spatial distribution of water surface Suspended Sediment Concentration (SSC). However, the authors have not specified the timing of these images. It is crucial to mention whether the images were taken after rainfall events or under normal conditions, as sediment concentration tends to vary under specific circumstances. For instance, sediment concentration could be higher at the entrance of the lake during normal times or rainfall events, as well as at the corners of the lake. To facilitate a meaningful discussion on the changing tendency of sediment concentration, it is essential that the images be captured under consistent hydrological conditions.

4.      The conclusion suggests that the sediment content in the middle of the dammed lake is relatively high, with a significant accumulation from 2013 to 2020, potentially leading to the formation of a new dammed dam in the center. However, it's important to note that dammed dams typically result from the dominance of bed load. Therefore, this conclusion lacks verification or supporting evidence. Topographic surveys may offer evidence to support the authors' prediction.

5.The conclusion also mentions the absence of measured Suspended Sediment Concentration (SSC) values, indicating that the study relies solely on satellite images and remote sensing technology to analyze collected data. This limitation raises concerns regarding the novelty of the findings and their verifiability. Therefore, further research is necessary to validate the results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Yousan Li et al.,submitted the article  Changes in Hydrological Characteristics of Attabad Landslide-Dammed Lake on the Karakoram Highway to mdpi. The study is focusing on the hydrological Characteristics of Attabad Landslide-Dammed Lake using remotes sensing approach and in-situ observations. Then, SCC is also obtained from satellite to evaluate the sediment content of the lake.
Overall it is an interesting paper with a logical construction. The Figures are well chosen to illustrate the evolution of the lake dimension/evolution and the SCC. The SCC could be improve as there could be a mix of seasonal impact and long term trend. It is actually difficult to conclude because satellite observation are only available at sporadic month. It make the SCC part bit weak nevertheless it can be use as illustration of change over the period.
The accuracy of the method used should be clearly indicated.
The English remains bit weak, some sentences are missing adequate verb and are sometime too long which decrease the paper quality. Please try to improve it.
Nevertheless the study remains honest in its attempt and limitation.


Question
1- Following the Line 431
Is there any attempt in the literature to convert SCC in quantitative sediment content

2- Is there a way to have a regular complete time series of SCC data from 2010-2020 and plot the SCC value at the same place over that period for example at the month of the lake ??


Figures
Fig. 3
Legend: I think that the lake extend not "scope of the lake"

Fig. 4
Missing units or Area and Rate of change, please add them

Fig. 5
Please add the unit of changed of LLSA and add a legend for the green line




Line 32
0. Introduction should be 1. Introduction

Line 49
area can understand
-->
area can help to understand

Line 50
, and the sediment
-->
showing that the sediment

Line 60
And Chen et al. (2020) researched
-->
Chen et al. (2020) researched

Line 64
have proposed
-->
investigated

Line 68
Which research you talking about ?
Existing Literature is to show the state of the art on the topic. Current research should show a new idea.

Line 82
MSS/TM/ETM+/OLI, Gaofen series satellites (GF-1/2),.... Precise which papers you referring to

Line 181-182
Precise here the accuracy achieved by the method showing that it is better than the standard NDVI approach

Line 235
can
-->
that can

Line 251
remote sensing quantitative in version model for suspended sediment is employed
you need to expand to explain the basis of the method, is it optical that use colour to deduce sediment content?
Then you need to indicate what the accuracy of such method based on literature if you did not performed in-situ observation. This will give indication of the reliability of the method.

Line 266
you need to precise in the methodology

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need to be improve, see comments for some indciations but each sentence need to ideally reworked.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript is interesting and novel. However, due to a lack of data to accurately assess remote sensing classification, the work is weak and lacks sufficient scientific content to be published. Furthermore, the descriptive statistics charts are very basic. Another limitation of the manuscript is that the given results are still local. It would be fine if the author could improve the manuscript further.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      The font size and style in figures should be reorganized and consistent with the contents.

2.      The titles of sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.1.1 are identical. They require revision.

3.      The responses to comments 3, 4, and 5 should be incorporated into the article. This inclusion will aid readers in understanding the limitations, hypotheses, and applicable areas of this study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in current form.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read and checked the manuscript titled “Changes in Hydrological Characteristics of Attabad Landslide- 2 Dammed Lake on the KKH “ carefully.  The manuscript is more like an application of the GIS system to a specific area. I think it is more suitable as a case study.

I have written down my suggestions for the authors below;

 

-       Keywords do not represent the manuscript directly. The words KKH, and the lake area is meanness as a keyword.

-       The introduction section does not contain any information about the novelty.

-       The end of the introduction section must have a brief description of what was done in this study and what is novel.

-       In the introduction section, there are too many general citations such as [9-11], [12-15], [16-21]. Mentioning the specific importance of each study may be more understandable for readers.

-       In Figure 1, The place of the landslide and the KKH highway is not clear. I suggest adding a bigger map, including the coordinates, to see the exact location of the case.

-       I suggest adding a brief description of the comprehensive water body index (CWI) to the methodology section.

-       How did you decide to use the given “years”. Why didn't you use the 2013, 2014, and 2018. Is it because of the data scarcity?

-       Please re-write the sentence In line 213-214. It is hard to follow the meaning of it.

-       Results about the SSC are common and expected outputs. I mean, If you have unstable shores, you may have landslides, and It will cause an increase in SSC. Similarly, if you have an inflow with high velocity, you will have an increase in SSC. The other more stable parts of the lake will have smaller SSC values.

-       I suggest changing the final part of the manuscript by dividing the conclusion and discussion sections. The discussion section must be added to the results section, and the conclusion section must be briefer.

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft in red, the detailed corrections are listed in the attachment.

    Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Please check grammatical errors. Please try to shorten the sentences. For eg. very long sentence (83-92)

2. Title is Changes in hydrological characteristics ....,  but the paper mainly focused on remote sensing. The paper discussed CWI and SSC, do the authors relate Changes in these indices as changes in hydrological characteristics?

3. The authors shall describe the Physical reasons for changes in CWI and SSC.

4. Line 191-193, claimed that the output of data will be value data for predicting and warning against potential lake failure. But how it will help, shall be well described 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please check grammatical error 

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft in red, the detailed corrections are listed in the attachment.

    Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft in red, the detailed corrections are listed in the attachment.

    Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Editor-in-Chief

Water

# water-2686305

Manuscript Title: Changes in Hydrological Characteristics of Attabad Landslide- 2

Dammed Lake on the KKH

 

Having carefully evaluated the manuscript, I would like to commend the authors for their thoughtful work. Here is some feedback for the author’s consideration during the revision process, which may improve the strength of the paper. Moreover, I believe that the manuscript is well organized. Therefore, a MAJOR revision is recommended for the manuscript. Details of the comments are as follows:

Abstract:

-It is advisable to include some of the key results and numerical findings in the abstract.

- Provide a final summary and implications in the abstract.

- It is preferable to use the full name of the study area instead of an abbreviation in the title of the article.

Introduction:

- The introduction lacks necessary coherence and needs to be rewritten.

- The literature provided in the introduction section is better to be mentioned in some details (not just citation numbers) to shows the evolution of the studies and state of the art.

- Please add much more international literature, to be of interest for the international readers.

- Prior to stating the objective, a summary of previous research should be provided, and the significant aspects of the research background should be highlighted for better emphasis.

Study area:

- It is better to provide some description on the amount of precipitation, the range of temperature changes… in the study area section.

Research Methodology:

- Explain how the validation of the extracted water body extents was conducted.

- Was observational data used for estimating SSC values? Please provide an explanation in the methodology section regarding this matter.

Results:

- It is advisable to move the formulas and descriptions of the calculation method for the Rate of Change of Lake Area, based on the single dynamic formula (3.1.1) and LLSI formula (3.2.1), to the methodology section for better clarity and organization. Additionally, provide supplementary explanations in this regard, referring to relevant sources that can be used to further elaborate on the topic. Examples of such sources include “Land use change dynamics assessment in the Khiavchai region, the.” and “Landscape change assessment and its prediction in a mountainous gradient...”

- In the presented figures, the unit of the vertical axis should be indicated, even if they are dimensionless.

- In the text and the provided figures, the unit of SSC should be mentioned.

- Is there any correlation or relationship between the changes in SSC (Suspended Sediment Concentration) and the extent of the lake during the studied years?

Conclusions:

- The limitations of the research and source of errors would be better to mention in the conclusion section.

- Make an overall projection/prediction regarding the future trend in lake area values based on the findings and suggest some research directions regarding incorporating climate change scenarios.

- Provide practical recommendations for early warning and safety based on the results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

The manuscript's English level is good, but some minor revisions are needed. These can be addressed by revising the manuscript.

 

 

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft in red, the detailed corrections are listed in the attachment.

    Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the author(s) corrections on the manuscript. The authors have addressed most of my comments in detail.  However, I still have the same concerns about the novelty; in its current form, it is only suitable as a case study. I think it can be re-submitted as a case study, not an original paper.  

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestion. We think this is an excellent suggestion. We have made revisions. I have consulted a lot of literature and found that there are very few studies on the sediment content of landslide dammed lakes, almost none. Previous work mainly focused on studying sediment concentration in plain lakes, estuaries, and sea areas. This article is an exploration of the hydrological characteristics of lakes caused by disasters. The innovation of this article is to study the spatial distribution characteristics of sediment content in barrier lakes in high mountain areas based on remote sensing technology.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The average monthly precipitation in the study area in the past ten years has remained below 50 mm (Figure 2). But the figure shows precipitation change or annual ppt , not clear.

2. Your answer to my previous comment is not convincing. Changes in SSC, higher in summer and lower in winter is a natural phenomena. Spatial distribution of SSC and changes in lake area are not directly correlated. Observation/Facts for the correlation shall be outlined. Further, How Changes in SSC indices indicates changes in hydrological characteristics ?

3. It is mentioned that due to artificial intervention, lake area is reduced drastically from 2010 to 2016/7. How SSC can be linked to artificial intervention.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English editing is still required at some paragraphs. Please go through in detail

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
1. Summary
We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft in red, the detailed corrections are listed below.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	[Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below]
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: [The average monthly precipitation in the study area in the past ten years has remained below 50 mm (Figure 2). But the figure shows precipitation change or annual ppt , not clear.]
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. We think this is an excellent suggestion. We have made a note at the bottom of the image in the text to express it clearly. For example, that blue dots represent the average monthly precipitation per year.
Comments 2: [Your answer to my previous comment is not convincing. Changes in SSC, higher in summer and lower in winter is a natural phenomena. Spatial distribution of SSC and changes in lake area are not directly correlated. Observation/Facts for the correlation shall be outlined. Further, How Changes in SSC indices indicates changes in hydrological characteristics ?]
Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion. We think this is an excellent suggestion. We have made detailed changes to this issue. My explanation regarding the relationship between sediment concentration and changes in the area of barrier lakes is that long-term sediment accumulation in barrier lakes can lead to an increase in water level, expansion of the barrier lake range, and an increase in water pressure in the barrier dam. At locations where river flow changes, long-term sedimentation may occur, resulting in the formation of new blockages and dams. As for how sediment concentration affects changes in hydrological characteristics, my explanation is that in this article, sediment concentration is one of the hydrological characteristics of lakes, and the mutual influence between the two has not been deeply explored. In this article, I consider lake area and sediment concentration as the two most basic characteristics of lakes. What I want to explain is the dynamic changes of barrier lakes, that is, how their lake scope changes and sediment content changes, in order to achieve the purpose of disaster monitoring.
Comments 3: [It is mentioned that due to artificial intervention, lake area is reduced drastically from 2010 to 2016/7. How SSC can be linked to artificial intervention.]
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion. We think this is an excellent suggestion. I am also pondering whether the change in the area of the barrier lake after manual intervention will lead to an increase in SSC. It is reasonable that when the water body in the lake area decreases, the sediment concentration will increase. At the same time, it can be seen from Figure 7 that from 2010 to 2013, the lake area decreased, but SSC continued to increase. Artificial flood discharge may lead to an increase in SSC in barrier lakes.

 

 

 

 

 

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes marked in red in revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the Authors for the attention they paid to all of my first comments.

Unfortunately, however, the main weaknesses of the work, identified in its first version, also remain in the present revision.

In fact, according to the Authors, the innovative part of the paper is represented by the study of the contents of the sediments in the lake (lines 76-77 of the revised paper). In fact, this study is mainly based on the description of the dynamics of the SSC. In turn, the SSC values were obtained through an indirect procedure whose calibration, lacking direct data, is derived from already existing studies for lakes with characteristics similar to those of the case under study (lines 248-251 of the revised paper). Therefore:

1) the study is not particularly innovative, as it explicitly refers to already existing methods (line 249);

2) these studies are not explicitly cited;

3) it is not specified, in an understandable way, what the similarity we are talking about consists of (line 250).

The writing seems to have been revised rather hastily, as evidenced by the numerous typos of which some examples:

line 239: SI in formula 2 is an acronym not previously introduced,

line 263: Tab. 3 still cited as tab. 2.

In conclusion, my opinion is that the topic is important and that the case study reported is interesting but that for the reasons stated previously, the manuscript in its current state should be rejected.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
1. Summary
We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft in red, the detailed corrections are listed below.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	[Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below]
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: [the study is not particularly innovative, as it explicitly refers to already existing methods (line 249)]
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with the viewpoint that the model in the article is a pre-existing model. However, I have consulted a lot of literature and found that there are very few studies on the sediment content of landslide dammed lakes, almost none. Previous work mainly focused on studying sediment concentration in plain lakes, estuaries, and sea areas. This article is an exploration of the hydrological characteristics of lakes caused by disasters. The innovation of this article is to study the spatial distribution characteristics of sediment content in barrier lakes in high mountain areas based on remote sensing technology.
Comments 2: [these studies are not explicitly cited; it is not specified, in an understandable way, what the similarity we are talking about consists of (line 250).]
Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion. We think this is an excellent suggestion. We have revised the unclear parts of the text. The commonality between their research area (Bohai Bay) and the barrier lake in the high-altitude area of this article is that the sediment content is relatively high, and the method is relatively simple and easy to implement.
Comments 3: [The writing seems to have been revised rather hastily, as evidenced by the numerous typos of which some examples: line 239: SI in formula 2 is an acronym not previously introduced, line 263: Tab. 3 still cited as tab. 2.]
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have made detailed changes to this issue.

 

 

 

 

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes marked in red in revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

 

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Significant efforts have been invested in resolving ambiguities and enhancing the article; nevertheless, a few minor issues persist. Section 2.2.1.2 necessitates revision, as certain portions of the reviewer's feedback have been directly integrated into the text. Furthermore, it is important to ensure numerical citation of references within that section and update the reference list for consistency across the entire text.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
1. Summary
We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft in red, the detailed corrections are listed below.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	[Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below]
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: [Significant efforts have been invested in resolving ambiguities and enhancing the article; nevertheless, a few minor issues persist. Section 2.2.1.2 necessitates revision, as certain portions of the reviewer's feedback have been directly integrated into the text. Furthermore, it is important to ensure numerical citation of references within that section and update the reference list for consistency across the entire text.]
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. I am very sorry for not understanding your meaning earlier. In this revised draft, corresponding examples have been added and the reference numbers have been readjusted. Meanwhile, other issues have also been addressed and highlighted in red in the text.

 

 

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes marked in red in revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.