Eutrophication Risk Potential Assessment between Forest and Agricultural Sub-Catchments Using LCIA Principles
, Václav Nedbal 1, Mohammad Ghorbani 2, Jakub Brom 1, Elnaz Amirahmadi 2,* and Jaroslav Bernas 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. In introduction, Authors paid much attention to the nitrogen and phosphorus pollution caused by none point sources, little was focused on the situations about the progress of eutrophication risk potential assessment between different land type. So did in ‘discussion’ part, authors should pay more attention to the results of the research but not the unrelated content.
2. Line 91-93, to the best of my knowledge, there are some studies focusing on the different releasing characteristics of pollutants between different land use type. More details about this topic should be included in the text, and also references should be added in this sentence.
3. A comparison can be made between the results of this study by using the ReCiPe 2016 method and other studies.
4. Line 90-91, Does the study area fall within the freshwater system? If so, why did authors consider the marine eutrophication potential? The justification for this should be included in the ‘introduction’.
5. Line111, is it ‘upper sub-catchment’ or ‘lower sub-catchment’? Please check this sentence.
6. Authors should avoid unnecessarily repeated description in the text. For example, (1),‘(forest)’ in Line 100 and ‘(agricultural)’ in Line 108 can be deleted. (2), Line 236-237 and Line 246-247, repetitive description.
7. Figure 1, is this map included the whole upper catchment of the stream?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for your valuable comments. We appreciate your time.
Hopefully, you will be satisfied with the modifications that were made based on your suggestions. Responses are annexed, you can also see them via track changes.
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments regarding manuscript “Eutrophication risk potential assessment between forest and agricultural sub-catchments using LCIA principles.”
Generally, the manuscript is well-written and comprehensive. However, I have some comments.
Please indicate the novelty of the study. Such models have been used for many years. What is different in your studies? The results of lower nutrient emissions from forest areas than arable land are rather predicted….
No real data on hydrological performance is presented in this study (as a hydrogram). This increases the manuscript's value and compares N, P loads, or N, P concentrations with the hydrological data. Provide some statistics for these calculations. Table 2 provides only the average monthly values. Thanks to such assessments, the explanation of how the highest loads of N and P appear in Fig. 3&4.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for your valuable comments. We appreciate your time.
Hopefully, you will be satisfied with the modifications that were made based on your suggestions. Responses are annexed, you can also see them via track changes.
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors assess the eutrophication risk potential of two components of the Bedřichovský catchment in the Czech Republic, an upper forested part and a lower agricultural part. They use the ReCiPe 2016 method to estimate risk for freshwater using phosphate-P loss measurements and for marine waters using nitrate-N measurements during 2017/18. They present results showing risks in both cases are higher for the agricultural component of the catchment.
The fact that N and P losses to rivers are almost always higher from agricultural land than from forest, at least in Europe, is well-known. The losses are a byproduct of food production.
The introduction includes much general material that will be well-known to any potential reader of the paper, and can be cut down. On the other hand, more description should be provided of the ReCiPe 2016 and IMPACT World+ methods of risk estimation, and its relevance in this study.
The authors measure nitrate N and (ortho)phosphate P. The catchments may be losing other forms of N and P, especially particulate phosphorus. Can they explain why they have chosen to find the freshwater eutrophication potential for P, but the marine potential for N? Some brief discussion of where the conversion factors 0.674 and 0.297 come from would also be appropriate.
Table 2 quotes figures to eight decimal places. This degree of accuracy is not warranted. The figures are unlikely to be accurate beyond the third or possibly fourth decimal place. While ReCiPe uses losses in kg/ha/time period, these are highly dependent on runoff over the time period, while eutrophication within rivers is dependent on concentration. It is therefore not clear how meaningful losses per unit area are. Could the authors discuss this, and also present some concentration values.
What direct evidence is there of eutrophication in the Bedřichovský catchment?
The discussion contains too much general material, and introduces pesticides, which are not the subject of the paper.
Overall, the only relative novelty in the paper is the use of the ReCiPe method to estimate theoretical eutrophication risk potential, and this is poorly discussed. The actual losses may be of local interest for advice to farmers and other stakeholders, particularly if EU standards are being breached.
Line 239. Merchantable is a mistranslation.
Line 305. Phosphorus
Lines 23 and 347 NO3-
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English is acceptable. I am a native speaker.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for your valuable comments. We appreciate your time.
Hopefully, you will be satisfied with the modifications that were made based on your suggestions. Responses are annexed, you can also see them via track changes.
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsBased on the feedback from reviewers, authors have made sufficient revisions. I recommend this manuscript for publication in the journal.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo further comment. The authors have by and large responded to my concerns about their previous submission.
