Sediment budget analysis of the Guayas River using   a process-based model

Barrera Crespo, Pedro D.; Mosselman, Erik; Giardino, Alessio; Becker, Anke; Ottevanger, Willem; Nabi, Mohamed; Arias-Hidalgo, Mijail

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2763-2019

Articles | Volume 23, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2763-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2763-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 23, issue 6

Research article

|

28 Jun 2019

Research article |

| 28 Jun 2019

Sediment budget analysis of the Guayas River using a process-based model

Pedro D. Barrera Crespo, Erik Mosselman, Alessio Giardino, Anke Becker, Willem Ottevanger, Mohamed Nabi, and Mijail Arias-Hidalgo

Download

Final revised paper (published on 28 Jun 2019)
Preprint (discussion started on 25 Oct 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review', Mick van der Wegen, 16 Nov 2018
- AC1: 'Response to the comments made by Reviewer 1', Pedro Barrera, 31 Jan 2019
RC2: 'Comments on the manuscript Sediment budget analysis of the Guayas River using a process-based model by P.D Barrera Crespo et al.', Dusan Zagar, 21 Nov 2018
- AC2: 'Response to the comments made by Reviewer 2', Pedro Barrera, 31 Jan 2019
RC3: 'Suggestions for improvement', Anonymous Referee #3, 04 Jan 2019
- AC3: 'Response to the comments made by Reviewer 3', Pedro Barrera, 31 Jan 2019

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (13 Feb 2019) by Matjaz Mikos

AR by Pedro Barrera on behalf of the Authors (26 Mar 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (21 Apr 2019) by Matjaz Mikos

RR by Mick van der Wegen (03 May 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Dear Authors;

Thank you for your responses. It was not always clear how and where the manuscript was updated since exact references (pages, lines) where lacking. Still, after some reading it seems that you answered the majority of my concerns; find my minor comments below. I am happy to accept when these are adequately answered.

My first comment was related to the clarity of the methodology and you did not provide a response (" 1) Your methodology is as follows . 1-derive a 'realistic' bathymetry starting from a flat bed. 2- validate hydrodynamics-sediment dynamics and morphodynamics. 3- evaluate model results and scenarios. Update your methodology section so that it reads like this (especially wrt the morphodynamic validation)"). Maybe you overlooked. I still find that you do not explain your methodology clearly in the introduction. I think that it should be made clear just after the aim of the paper otherwise it only becomes clear at the end of the paper what you did (conclusions) which should not be the case.

My second comment was related to a description of the initial bathymetry generation; You responded by a clear description of how the initial bathymetry was generated, but I fail to see this description in the manuscript. I think it is essential and that you have to include it since it is a crucial aspect of your work. Also this publication should be self explanatory..... "Available journal space" should not be the leading argument here. The text could read (based on your explanation text):

"The Delft3D morphodynamic model initial condition renders a flat bed in the area lacking topographic information. The bed level was set according to the mean water depth estimated with an analytical model (Savenije (2006)).The morphodynamic simulation was run until an equilibrium condition is reached. This was determined by monitoring the evolution of the mean estuary’s depth and sedimentation and erosion volumes in the area lacking topographic information. In total it took about 200 years of morphodynamic simulation to reach the equilibrium. The available topographic data is scarce, only a few contour lines spaced vertically every 5 m were available in some areas of the estuary. These contours cover elevations that range between -2 and -20 m in relation to MSL. The latter information was complemented with available satellite images in order to discern characteristic morphological features like shoals and deep channels. This was then contrasted with the topography derived by the long-term simulation. After a close visual inspection, it could be verified that most of the morphological features were captured properly in the northern and middle part of the estuary. In addition, after performing a tidal analysis for both measured and modeled water levels, a generally good agreement could be verified for the amplitude and phases of the most energetic components. See Barrera Crespo (2016) for more detailed information."

My third comment is nicely addressed with revealing new figure 6 showing some ebb dominance in the lower part and flood dominance in the upper part.

My fourth comment is now nicely addressed and I agree that this coarse sediment will be hardly susceptible to density driven flow, although these flows may exist even in well mixed conditions...

Mick van der Wegen

Hide

RR by Dusan Zagar (15 May 2019)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (24 May 2019) by Matjaz Mikos

AR by Pedro Barrera on behalf of the Authors (28 May 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (04 Jun 2019) by Matjaz Mikos

AR by Pedro Barrera on behalf of the Authors (06 Jun 2019) Manuscript

Short summary

Guayaquil, the commercial capital of Ecuador, is located along the Guayas River. The city is among the most vulnerable cities to future flooding ascribed to climate change. Fluvial sedimentation is seen as one of the factors contributing to flooding. This paper describes the dominant processes in the river and the effects of past interventions in the overall sediment budget. This is essential to plan and design effective mitigation measures to face the latent risk that threatens Guayaquil.