Study on Sedimentary Evolution of the Hanjiang River Delta during the Late Quaternary
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors are presenting experimental results from drilling a series of cores from Hanjiang subaqueous delta. The presented analysis of the sediment gives detailed insights into the climate and sea-level changes during the late Quaternary.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review of the manuscript, we have completed the modification, coverletter see attachment.Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- Correct English
- Not familiar with sedimentology, but nice article for a non-specialist to read
- Have the areas been dredged ? Does that change the conclusions if they were dredged? This fact should be mentioned.
- Beware of spaces with () and []: no spaces after "(" or before ")". Please a space before "[".
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review of the manuscript, we have completed the modification, coverletter see attachment.Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors
Despite the focus of your work is very interesting and relevant, the quality of what is presented is below what is expected in a scientific work.
Here are the major shortcomings of this work:
-Abstract: it is confusing, and unclear, and does not define the problem and the objectives of the work.
-Introduction: it is weak and should be better structured. It must present the problem, the state of the art and the clear objective of the work.
- Geological context: can and should be more detailed
- Sampling: must be clearly detailed in a section of the manuscript for a better understanding of the work
- Methods: must be described in sufficient detail to allow their reproduction
The writing form of the manuscript should be more careful and less colloquial than intended in a scientific text. All text from results, discussion and conclusions should be revised after a good introduction and materials and methods section. It is very difficult to review an article from the point of view of results and discussion if the initial sections are poorly described. All English in the manuscript must be proofread by a native speaker.
The work has potential but must be thoroughly reviewed by the authors in order to be published. Recommend that thorough revisions be made.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review of the manuscript, we have completed the modification, coverletter see attachment.Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments on the manuscript “Study on sedimentary evolution of the Hanjiang River Delta during the late Quaternary.”
The paper presents chronologic (AMS14C and OSL ages), micropaleontologic (foraminifera and gastropods descriptions), and sedimentologic (grain size distribution) of sediments drilled in a series of cores in the sea area outside the Hanjiang River estuary, Guang’ao Bay, Haimen Bay in southeast China. The main goal is to obtain information about the sedimentary environment, sea-level change, and climate change and further discuss the initiation of the Hanjiang delta and its primary factors.
The article is important because it constrained the age evolution of the delta fed by the main rivers in the study area based on underwater sampling. In this sense, the article complements previous research that used samples distributed mainly in the flat area of the Hanjiang River Delta. In addition, the Hanjiang River and others pass through an estuarine area before reaching the sea and building up the delta deposits. In this way, deltaic sediments are an essential record of climate and sea level changes that can severely impact the dynamics of the estuary, negatively affecting human society and biodiversity.
Altogether, the paper fits the scope of Applied Science, and the first recommendation would be to consider it for publication in the journal. However, the text is rough and poorly finished, containing typos, several meaningless sentences, and missing or incorrectly numbered tables. In addition, the discussion presents many statements that do not recover the data presented in the Results item. Therefore, how the authors arrived at such statements and conclusions is unclear.
Thus, despite the significance of data obtained for advancing the understanding of the evolution of the studied Quaternary delta, I recommend that the paper be considered for publication only after the authors’ in-depth and detailed review of the manuscript.
Some of the major modifications needed in the paper before publication is listed below:
1) Abstract: lines 21-23 (Since LGM …..by the sea-level change.) should be moved to the end of line 29 to tell the delta’s evolution following the geological time (from older to younger events).
2) Keywords seem to be too general (e.g., sedimentary evolution). Perhaps some keywords, such as estuary, would be better. I would recommend reviewing the Keywords.
3) Lines 54-55: mention the Holocene after Early Late Pleistocene to follow the geological time sequence.
4) Line 59: it would be interesting to give more information about the importance of the research on the sea area. Why would this be important? Maybe because thicker deposits in the sea area could record a complete evolutionary history of the delta evolution?
5) Line 67: why “each”? Reading the text up to line 67 does not allow understanding that other areas (Guang'ao Bay, Haimen Bay) were sampled. It would be better to clarify this part of the text differently.
6) Line 72: there are much more cores in figure 1. It would be better to explain in item 2.1 which cores were used for sampling in each area (Hanjiang River estuary, Guang’ao Bay, Haimen Bay).
7) Lines 73-74: what does "basic geological data” mean?
8) Figure 1: it is necessary to include a map showing the location of the study area in southeast China.
9) Lines 82-85: the text is confusing. Review the sentence.
10) Line 115: Figure 2. is about the grain size parameter variation of ZK03 borehole sediment. It should be mentioned in the Results and not in Methods.
11) Lines 116 to 121: the text seems to be a copy of a laboratory manual and should be rewritten.
12) Lines 138 to 150: the text seems to be a copy of a laboratory manual and should be rewritten.
13) Line 159: Where are tables 1 to 4?
14) Lines 165-167: the text seems to be an instruction to the own authors. Review or delete.
15) Line 168: the table 5 caption seems to be an informal mention, and it should be changed for some as “AMS14C results obtained for ....”. Review the others table captions in the same manner.
16) In table 5: why mention “mucky”? It seems to be a very informal term and should be changed for a proper sedimentologic description.
17) Line 200: 2m to 4m?
18) The text in lines 232 to 233 has no meaning and is confusing. The text should be rewritten.
19) Lines 235 to 239: The text is confusing and should be rewritten.
20) Line 241: The text is obvious and repetitive.
21) Line 287: what does mean “but the sorting is general”?
22) The study’s objective is clearly stated, and the results obtained are significant and well-presented by the authors. However, the results barely support the discussion and Conclusion, which need review.
23) In lines 355 and 364, the authors mention two last glacial periods, one at 70ka and the other at 26-17ka. It is confusing that information.
24) In the Abstract (line 16), the study of clay content is mentioned. In line 357, the authors mention that the kaolinite content was high, and in the Conclusion, they mention the clay mineral assemblage content determination. However, there is no information about clay analysis in the Methods nor any data in the Results. The authors should carefully review the Discussion because they apparently mention data not presented in the Results.
25) Regarding data not presented in the Results but shown in the Discussion, it is strange to see a field photo of the study area in the Discussion. Perhaps, Figure 5 could be shown in the Results item.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review of the manuscript, we have completed the modification, coverletter see attachment.Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors revised the manuscript and improved the text, figures, and tables according to the previous suggestions.
Probably minor English language and style, as well as spell checking, is required.
Thus, I would recommend some revision of the text before publication.
Author Response
Thank you again for your revision of the manuscript. We have processed your comments comprehensively. Each comment starts with an original comment, followed by a red response. Please review again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
