I think the authors have addressed most comments and concerns I made in the last revision. The quality of this paper is significantly improved. I have a few additional minor comments below. And, a copy-editing is still required for some English issues.
1) I don’t recommend to put the equations and computational components in the Appendix. They should be introduced in the methodology section. And, I really want to see further and detailed information in the methodology, eg., how does the model determine the exchanges between river and floodplain?
2) And also, I think the time-series plots should be move to the result section, too. I don’t understand why authors decide to leave them in the appendix.
3) It seems the numbers of hours above threshold in Table 2 are observation results but not the simulation results. How is the model result?
4) Using 2011 river and infrastructure network for 2000 simulation seems worrisome for me. Is it possible to make any estimation for 2000 dike developments and river network?
5) I doubt if the author can claim “tidal backwater effect is minimal” from the 0.08 m increase, considering the 0.28 m change in river and infrastructure network. 0.08 is not minimal to 0.28.
6) I feel the discussion section is still long and verbose. Try to address the benefits of this model in simulating river discharge in dike-developed scenarios. Eg. how does the model improve? Does it compare with other models?
7) In the end of the response to reviewer #2, the authors mentioned the computational demands are one of the major limits for 2D and 3D approach. Could you provide an estimation of computational cost for this simulation? |