Numerical study of the seasonal thermal and gas regimes of the largest artificial reservoir in western Europe using the LAKE 2.0 model

Iakunin, Maksim; Stepanenko, Victor; Salgado, Rui; Potes, Miguel; Penha, Alexandra; Novais, Maria Helena; Rodrigues, Gonçalo

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3475-2020

Articles | Volume 13, issue 8

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3475-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3475-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 13, issue 8

Model experiment description paper

|

05 Aug 2020

Model experiment description paper |

| 05 Aug 2020

Numerical study of the seasonal thermal and gas regimes of the largest artificial reservoir in western Europe using the LAKE 2.0 model

Maksim Iakunin, Victor Stepanenko, Rui Salgado, Miguel Potes, Alexandra Penha, Maria Helena Novais, and Gonçalo Rodrigues

Download

Final revised paper (published on 05 Aug 2020)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 17 Jan 2020)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'gmd-2019-309', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Mar 2020
- AC1: 'Authors' responses to the Anonymous Referee #1 comments', Maksim Iakunin, 11 May 2020
RC2: 'Review for Journal: GMD Title: Numerical study of the seasonal thermal and gas regimes of the large artiﬁcial reservoir in Western Europe using LAKE2.0 model Auhor(s): Maksim Iakunin et al. MS No.: gmd-2019-309', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Mar 2020
- AC2: 'Authors' responses to the Anonymous Referee #2 comments', Maksim Iakunin, 11 May 2020

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Maksim Iakunin on behalf of the Authors (11 May 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (30 May 2020) by Paul Ullrich

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (16 Jun 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

General Comments
I put quite a bit of effort into reviewing this paper, and I am pleased to see how thoroughly and thoughtfully the authors have responded to my comments. Below I suggest a few more minor edits and suggested changes to the manuscript. After making these changes the paper should be accepted for publication. I will not need to review it again.

Specific changes
Pg 2 line 14 - vital activity >> services
Pg 2 line 24 - change acidity to pH
Pg 4 line 21 has been >> was
Pg 4 line 22 definitely >> for the remainder of the study
Pg 5 line 6 processes is >> processes are
Pg 6 line 23 below the mixed layer of the euphotic zone?
Pg 6 line 33 demonstates a big >> undergoes a large
Pg 7 line 4 allowed to improve the results >> led to improved results
Pg 8 fig 2 from the description in the paper it seems that the black dashed lines are to make the end of thermal stratification, but they clearly seem to be place on the heat maps at time of distinct thermal stratification (significant vertical temperatgure gradients). Check to see if there an error in the placement of these lines.
Pg 8 line 18 cooling >> cools
Pg 9 I would suggest that you change
As in the real ML the temperature is not exactly constant, measurements from the sensor at 0.5 m depth were chosen for the comparison.
Since the vertical gradient of the measured ML temperature is not exactly constant , measurements from the sensor at 0.5 m depth were chosen to represent the mixed layer temperature in figure 3 .
Pg 10 I find this a little confusing
FLake provides ML depth, shape factor for the thermocline curve, ML and bottom temperature.
It seems like these cannot be independent. The shape factor must in some way be dependent on the temperatures, likewise ML temperature must be dependent of the ML shape factor determining the ML depth. I think you just need to add a little more describing how this works.
Pg 11 line 17 as well as the Flake >> as well as Flake or as well as the Flake model
Pg 15 line 6 this >> these
Pg 17 line 1. I don’t quite understand what you mean by does not show large residuals. Fig 8b seems to me to have much higher residuals that fig 8a
Pg 17 line 5 delete - values of O2
Pg 17 line 6 delete - (underestimation of O2 values) and winter minimum (high overestimation)
Pg 17 line 7 Supposedly >> probably
Pg 17 line 8 for elimination this ﬂaws >> to improve model performance
Pg 17 line 8 inside the lakes >> of lakes

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (23 Jun 2020) by Paul Ullrich

AR by Maksim Iakunin on behalf of the Authors (26 Jun 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (05 Jul 2020) by Paul Ullrich

AR by Maksim Iakunin on behalf of the Authors (07 Jul 2020) Manuscript

Short summary

The Alqueva reservoir, located in the southeast of Portugal, is the largest artificial reservoir in western Europe. It was established in 2002 to provide water and electrical resources to meet regional needs. Complex research of this reservoir is an essential scientific task in the scope of meteorology, hydrology, biology, and ecology. Two numerical models (namely, LAKE 2.0 and FLake) were used to assess the thermodynamic and biogeochemical regimes of the reservoir over 2 years of observations.