Drivers of nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics in a groundwater-fed urban catchment revealed by high-frequency monitoring

Yu, Liang; Rozemeijer, Joachim C.; Broers, Hans Peter; van Breukelen, Boris M.; Middelburg, Jack J.; Ouboter, Maarten; van der Velde, Ype

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-69-2021

Articles | Volume 25, issue 1

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-69-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-69-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 25, issue 1

Research article

|

05 Jan 2021

Research article |

| 05 Jan 2021

Drivers of nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics in a groundwater-fed urban catchment revealed by high-frequency monitoring

Liang Yu, Joachim C. Rozemeijer, Hans Peter Broers, Boris M. van Breukelen, Jack J. Middelburg, Maarten Ouboter, and Ype van der Velde

Download

Final revised paper (published on 05 Jan 2021)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 26 Feb 2020)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of ‘Drivers of nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics in a groundwater-fed urban catchment revealed by high frequency monitoring’ by Yu et al. (2020)', Matthias Gassmann, 16 Apr 2020
- AC1: 'Reply to reviewer 1', Liang Yu, 01 Jun 2020
- AC4: 'Additional material', Liang Yu, 03 Jun 2020
RC2: 'review of Drivers of nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics in a groundwater-fed urban catchment revealed by high frequency monitoring', Piet Seuntjens, 18 Apr 2020
- AC2: 'Reply to reviewer 2', Liang Yu, 01 Jun 2020
- AC5: 'Additional material', Liang Yu, 03 Jun 2020
RC3: 'Review of hess-2020-34 Yu et al. (2020)', Anonymous Referee #3, 22 Apr 2020
- AC3: 'Reply to reviewer 3', Liang Yu, 01 Jun 2020
- AC6: 'Additional material', Liang Yu, 03 Jun 2020

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (further review by editor) (15 Jun 2020) by Christian Stamm

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (19 Jun 2020) by Christian Stamm

AR by Liang Yu on behalf of the Authors (30 Jul 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (31 Jul 2020) by Christian Stamm

RR by Matthias Gassmann (21 Aug 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

General comments
I would like to thank the authors for all the hard work they put into the revision of this manuscript, which has been improved much. My questions and comments have largely been answered satisfactorily. A list of some minor suggestions can be found in the specific comments. Once they are answered, I recommend publication of the article.

Specific comments
l. 99: A bracket is missing before ‘2019’
l.100: change ‘catchments’ to ‘catchment’
l.102: change ‘…pattern on the nutrient N…’ to ‘…patterns of the nutrients N…’
l.103: change ‘since 1990s…’ to ‘Since the 1990s…’
l.107: Please expand ‘NAP’ once. The explanation given in the first version is not necessary.
l.108: Please remove the full stop between the brackets.
l.203: In the answers to the comments a value of 1.5 mm was given for the seepage. In the manuscript, a value of 2.0 mm was given. Which one is true?
l.211: Please correct the formatting of the text after the variable.
l.246: change ‘significant’ to ‘significantly’
l.271: Change ‘The coefficients of determination (R² “Pearson method used)…’ to ‘Pearson’s coefficient of determination (R²)…’
l.325: It is no wonder the model cannot capture the short-term peaks of TP, since the model runs with a daily time step while the measurements were hourly. It would be better to aggregate the hourly measurements to daily averages and compare them to the model results for all parameters. Which of the sub-daily values were used for model comparison, anyway? Noon time? Midnight?
l.378-384, Figure 4 and 5: Please add the unit to the turbidity axis, the SW level, water temperature and EC.
l.412: A bracket is missing before ‘Fig 2’ and a full stop after ‘Fig’.
l.393-431: There are still a lot of repetitions in chapter 4.1, e.g. the sentence in lines 426-428 was already used in lines 324-326. Please remove the repetitions and consolidate the text.
l.553-555: There is something grammatically wrong in this sentence.
l.604: ‘…New Orleans, Shanghai and Dhaka.’ Are there any references for this?

Figure S3: The caption states ‘Hourly time series of TP and turbidity…’ but only turbidity is shown in the graph.

Hide

RR by Piet Seuntjens (27 Aug 2020)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (01 Sep 2020)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (08 Sep 2020) by Christian Stamm

AR by Liang Yu on behalf of the Authors (22 Sep 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (01 Oct 2020) by Christian Stamm

AR by Liang Yu on behalf of the Authors (01 Oct 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (05 Oct 2020) by Christian Stamm

AR by Liang Yu on behalf of the Authors (31 Oct 2020)

Short summary

The assessment of the collected water quality information is for the managers to find a way to improve the water environment to satisfy human uses and environmental needs. We found groundwater containing high concentrations of nutrient mixes with rain water in the ditches. The stable solutes are diluted during rain. The change in nutrients over time is determined by and uptaken by organisms and chemical processes. The water is more enriched with nutrients and looked dirtier during winter.