Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Dec 21;15(12):e0243198. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243198

Study of the thermal regime of a reservoir on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, China

Yanjing Yang 1, Yun Deng 1,*, Youcai Tuo 1, Jia Li 1, Tianfu He 1, Min Chen 1
Editor: NING Sun2
PMCID: PMC7751983  PMID: 33347489

Abstract

The Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau region has unique meteorological characteristics, with low air temperature, low air pressure, low humidity, little precipitation, and strong diurnal variation. A two-dimensional hydrodynamic CE-QUAL-W2 model was configured for the Pangduo Reservoir to better understand the thermal structure and diurnal variation inside the reservoir under the local climate and hydrological conditions on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Observation data were used to verify the model, and the results showed that the average error of the 6 profile measured monthly from August to December 2016 was 0.1°C, and the root-mean-square error (RMSE) was 0.173°C. The water temperature from August 2016 to September 2017 was simulated by inputting measured data as model inputs. The results revealed that the reservoir of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau was a typical dimictic reservoir and the water mixed vertically at the end of March and the end of October. During the heating period, thermal stratification occurred, with strong diurnal variation in the epilimnion. The mean variance of the diurnal water temperature was 0.10 within a 5 m water depth but 0.04 in the whole water column. The mixing mode of inflow changed from undercurrent, horizontal-invaded flow and surface layer flow in one day. In winter, the diurnal variation was weak due to the thermal protection of the ice cover, while the mean variance of diurnal water temperature was 0.00 within both 5 m and the whole water column. Compared to reservoirs in areas with low altitude but the same latitude, significant differences occurred between the temperature structure of the low-altitude reservoir and the Pangduo Reservoir (P<0.01). The Pangduo Reservoir presented a shorter stratification period and weaker stratification stability, and the annual average SI value was 26.4 kg/m2, which was only 7.5% that of the low-altitude reservoir. The seasonal changes in the net heat flux received by the surface layers determined the seasonal cycle of stratification and mixing in reservoirs. This study provided a scientific understanding of the thermal changes in stratified reservoirs under the special geographical and meteorological conditions on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Moreover, this model can serve as a reference for adaptive management of similar dimictic reservoirs in cold and high-altitude areas.

1. Introduction

When a river dam is used to regulate runoff, it will inevitably affect the spatial and temporal changes in water temperature in the reservoir area and downstream rivers [1]. Thermal pollution of rivers degrades water quality, increases nutrients and threatens ecosystem health [24]. The velocity of the shallow channel is fast, and the vertical mixing is basically uniform. However, the construction of the dam transforms the water into a relatively static or slow-flowing general state, thus forming unique reservoir temperature stratification characteristics [5, 6]. The stratified thermal structure is the basic physical characteristic of the lake, which increases the risk of water quality deterioration, such as the reduction of nutrients and dissolved oxygen in deep water [79]. Moreover, the temperature stratification of reservoir water will affect the utilization of reservoir water, and this process likely has a negative influence on reservoir and river aquatic life in water ecosystems [1012]. Research on the evolution law of the water thermal regime is the basis for optimizing the allocation of reservoir water and mitigating its negative effects [13, 14]. Researchers in many countries have studied the water temperature of reservoirs based on their specific conditions [1518].

Surface mixed layers of reservoirs periodically appear and disappear with variations in heat flux [19]. The heat absorption of the water surface has an important influence on the heating process of the thermocline during the heating period. In the cooling period, the heat loss of the surface water drives vertical mixing and the inflow of low-temperature water forms an intrusion flow, which jointly controls the cooling process of the thermocline [20, 21]. Temperature, radiation and local winds are the most important factors in the thermal processes in lakes or reservoirs [2224]. However, the impact of climate change is unique because the stratified characteristics of lakes (reservoirs) are affected by various factors, such as the density structures, morphological characteristics (deep run-of-the-river and lake-type reservoirs), and artificial regulation of reservoirs [2528]. Therefore, it is meaningful to explore the response to climate change and the thermal state of the reservoir.

In recent years, a set of highly indicative description systems was established [29]. The stratification time and the thermocline characteristics are important indexes to evaluate the response of lake thermal stratification to external factors [30]. The current research mainly focuses on the regularity of water temperature stratification in response to annual and seasonal changes [31, 32]. However, related research indicates that the reservoir would have a more subtle mixing process within a day; specifically, the epilimnion is heated during the daytime and cooled at night and subject to the influence of temperature fluctuations every day and night, resulting in diurnal variations [33]. Surface water always has a noticeable convection effect, which likely weakens the buoyancy effect of surface water [34]. The stratification of lakes and reservoirs is related to local meteorology, water temperature and geographical morphology [8]. The diurnal variation characteristics of lakes in different regions are different. In temperate reservoirs, the solar radiation reaching the surface is sufficient to produce a density difference and strong stability in the water column while the nighttime cooling of the surface water is not sufficient to break the buoyancy and form a heat cycle [35]. The density difference between the epilimnion and hypolimnion of tropical monomictic reservoirs is smaller than that of temperate reservoirs; therefore, tropical monomictic reservoirs are not only unstable but also prone to diurnal variations [36]. Dimictic reservoirs are covered with ice during part of the year and stratified during the other part, with two mixed periods in between. Few studies have focused on the diurnal variation characteristics and formation mechanisms of dimictic reservoirs in cold and high-altitude areas.

With the development of China's water conservancy projects in the source region of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, the evolution of lake and reservoir water temperature is becoming increasingly complicated [24]. The Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau has unique weather and atmospheric circulation characteristics, which have a significant impact on the Asian monsoon, global atmospheric circulation and global climate change [37, 38]. The Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau is characterized by low temperature, low air pressure, low humidity, little precipitation, a simple ecosystem structure and weak anti-interference ability. In addition, the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau is ecologically vulnerable to human activities and environmental changes [3941]. Local aquatic organisms on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau grow slowly and are more sensitive to changes in hydraulic conditions, such as water temperature and flow velocity. Thus, the impact of water temperature changes on the ecological environment will be more significant [42]. Few studies have investigated the water temperature characteristics of reservoirs on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Previous studies have demonstrated that the epilimnion, metalimnion and hypolimnion layers could be obviously distinguished in Nam Co based on their different physicochemical features [43]. Moreover, the thermal characteristics of deep run-of-the-river reservoirs on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau are rarely understood, and the mechanism of water mixing in reservoirs is still unclear.

Various numerical models have been developed and applied to study the hydrodynamic and thermal processes of reservoirs [44]. An unsteady two-dimensional model (along longitudinal and vertical directions) is the minimum requirement to study spatial-temporal thermal regime variations in the Pangduo Reservoir (Fig 1), which is a long-but-narrow reservoir with a longitudinal gradient in temperature that is not small enough to be neglected. Consequently, we conducted the present study by using CE-QUAL-W2, a two-dimensional laterally averaged hydrodynamic and water quality model [45]. This model provides accurate simulations of the stratification and density currents and has been widely used to study various reservoirs and river impoundments worldwide [4648].

Fig 1. Study area diagram.

Fig 1

The present study focuses on the Pangduo Reservoir, a run-of-river reservoir located on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau in China. The study is conducted to better understand the thermal structure and diurnal variations inside the reservoir under the local climate and hydrological conditions on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau and identify the dominant factors that control the changes in diurnal variations. We investigated the changes of thermal regime in the Pangduo Reservoir by analyzing observed data in several monitored stations and by using the two-dimensional CE-QUAL-W2 model. Furthermore, the validated model was developed to understand the thermal structure and diurnal variations in the Pangduo Reservoir under the influence of local climate hydrological conditions on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. In addition, a comparative case study was performed with a low-altitude reservoir.

2. Case study

2.1 Study area

The Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau is the highest geomorphic tectonic unit in the world and ranges from N 26°00' to N 39°47' and E 73°19' to E 104°47’. A unique hydrothermal condition has been formed due to the restriction of atmospheric circulation and plateau topography. The Pangduo Reservoir (N 30°51'; E 91°21') is located in the upper reaches of the Lhasa River, a tributary of Yarlung Zangbo River, and it is the largest water conservancy project on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. The Pangduo Reservoir consists of an embankment dam, flood releasing structures, and power tunnels that lead water to huge underground powerhouses. The top elevation of the dam is 4100 m above sea level (a.s.l.), and the elevation of the riverbed near the dam is 4038 m a.s.l. In the Pangduo dam, there are two 7-m high and 6-m wide power tunnels, with the entrance bottom elevation at 4059 m a.s.l. The basin of the Pangduo Reservoir has a typical canyon shape, and the slope of the riverbed is approximately 0.24%. The length of the reservoir is approximately 46.51 km where the water surface is near horizontal and surface width varies from 100 m to 1700 m. The water depth near the dam ranges from 42 to 57 m throughout the year. The full storage of the reservoir is 12.3 × 108 m3 at 4095 m a.s.l. The installed capacity of the power station is 120 MW. The function of the Pangduo Reservoir is irrigation and power generation, and the reservoir also provides functions that include flood control, urban water supply, and ecological environmental protection.

2.2 Regional monitoring

To understand the thermal characteristics of this plateau reservoir and its relationship with meteorological responses, we monitored the water temperature and meteorological conditions of the Pangduo Reservoir from August 23, 2016 to September 28, 2017. The monitoring scheme is shown in Table 1. The monitoring points (Fig 1A1 and 1A2) were set up at the end of the Wululong and Rezhenzangbu tributary reservoirs, and the monitoring frequency was once per hour. A vertical water temperature automatic monitoring temperature chain was installed in front of the dam for short-term monitoring (Fig 1B1) from August 25 to August 31, 2016; the monitoring frequency was once per hour; and the vertical interval of sampling depth was 1 m. Manual on-site inspections and reviews were conducted monthly on September 15, October 15, November 22 and December 15, during which we used EXO2 to monitor the vertical water temperature. Other factors, such as air temperature, ambient humidity, wind speed, wind direction, and solar radiation, were monitored by a self-recording weather station (Fig 1A3) installed on the top of the dam during the monitoring period.

Table 1. Monitoring scheme.

Project Point Location Latitude and Longitude Instrument Period and Frequency
Continuous water temperature A1: Wululong 91°12'19"E30°15'51"N ZDR-20h 2016.08.25~2017.09.28, Once per hour.
A2: Rezhenzangbu 91°31'17"E30°18'20"N
Meteorological A3: Dam top 91°21'49"E30°10'55"N Jinzhou SunshinePC-4
Vertical water temperature B1: Upstream of dam 91°21'09"E30°11'15"N TidbiT v2 (UTBI-001) 2016.08.25~2016.08.31, Once per hour.
Manual monitoring B1: Upstream of dam 91°21'09"E30°11'15"N EXO2 2016.09~2016.12, Once a month

The average monthly air temperature varied from -2.1°C to 13.7°C (S1A Fig), with the lowest air temperature in January and the highest air temperature in July, with an average variance of 11.2°C in one day. The lowest air temperature appeared from 6 to 7 a.m., and the mean was 2.1°C. The highest temperature was from 3 to 4 p.m., and the mean was 11.0°C. The average solar radiation was 231.2 W/m2 during the monitoring period (S1B Fig), which showed an upward trend from December to August of the following year and reached the highest value in August at 359 W/m2. The solar radiation was the strongest during the day from 12 to 2 p.m., with an average value of 980.4 W/m2. The mean water temperatures of the Rezhenzangbu (S1C Fig) and Wululong branches (S1D Fig) were 6.1°C and 6.7°C, respectively, and they were affected by meteorological conditions. The average daily variations in the temperature of the Rezhenzangbu tributary and Wululong tributary were 2.1°C and 3.2°C, respectively.

2.3 Satellite pictures in winter

The Pangduo Reservoir freezes in winter. To understand the growth, development, and ablation processes of winter ice in the Pangduo Reservoir, we used Landsat 8 satellite data to identify the classification of ice and water in the reservoir area based on the spectral differences of different features (S2 Fig). With the decrease in air and inflow water temperature in early December and affected by the water-gas heat exchange and the solid boundary heat conduction, ice first appeared in the shallow water of the reservoir tail, with ice coverage of 6%. In mid-February, as the water body continued to lose heat, the initial ice cover formed in the Wululong branch, the water surface was frozen, and the ice area of the Rezhenzangbu branch increased rapidly. The area in front of the dam was frozen, and the ice coverage rate in the reservoir area reached 67.35%. As the air and inflow water temperature increased by the end of March, the ice surface began to thaw and the ice coverage rate in the reservoir area declined to 50.4%. Finally, the freezing period ended at the end of April.

3. Mathematical models and methods

Our research activities do not require specific permissions, the research area is open, there are no restrictions on scientific research, and the research does not involve endangered or protected species. We used CE-QUAL-W2, a two-dimensional hydrodynamics and water quality model [45], to quantify the thermal regime and diurnal variation of the reservoirs on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. This paper constructed a longitudinal and vertical two-dimensional water temperature model for the whole reservoir area, and it ignored the variation in various variables along the width of the river; thus, the model could be applied to water bodies with longitudinal and vertical temperature gradients in the Pangduo Reservoir. The main input boundaries of the model include inflow, outflow, inflow water temperature, and meteorological conditions.

3.1 Governing equations

The governing equations [45] include mass conservation and conservation of momentum using the Boussinesq approximation, in which the effects of density changes are considered only in the gravity term and the hydrostatic pressure assumption is used. The specific details are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Governing equations.

Field Name Equations Variates and coefficients
1 Continuous equation BUx+BWz=(q+qb)B B: width of the water body
U: longitudinal flow velocity
W: vertical flow velocity
q: lateral unit length of the incoming flow
2 X-direction momentum equation UBt+UUBx+WUBz=gBsinα+gcosαBηxgcosαBρηzρxdz+1ρBτxxx+1ρBτxzz+qbBUx η: water level
α: river dip
ρ: water density
Ux: x component of the tributary flow rate
Ub: longitudinal flow velocity of the tributary
Β: angle of the dry tributary
qb: unit length of the tributary
Ux = Ubcosβ Bη: water surface width
3 Hydrostatic pressure assumption 0=gcosα1ρpz Dx and Dz: longitudinal and vertical dispersion coefficients
SΦ: laterally averaged source/sink term
4 Free surface equation Bηηt=xηhBudzηhqBdz
5 Heat transport equation BρCPTt+UBρCPTx+WBρCPTz(BDxρCPTx)x(BDzρCPTz)z=SΦB
6 Water-air interface heat exchange φGY = φsn+φanφbrφε+φc φGY: plateau water-air heat exchange flux
φsn: solar shortwave radiant heat flux
φan: atmospheric longwave radiant heat flux
φbr: back radiant heat flux by water
φε: the evaporative heat flux
φc: heat conduction flux
7 Ice cover ρiLfΔhΔt=hai(TiTe)hwi(TwTm) ρi: ice density
Lf: latent heat of freezing
Δh/Δt: ice thickness growth rate
hai and hwi: heat exchange coefficients of ice-gas and ice-water, respectively
Tm: temperature of the ice-water interface
Te: temperature at which the heat exchange between ice and air reaches equilibrium
Tw: water temperature under ice
Ti: ice temperature

3.2 Model grid and calculation conditions

The Pangduo Reservoir was divided into 131 × 37 (longitudinal × vertical) rectangular cells. The longitudinal size of the cell grid was 100 ~ 300 m, and the vertical size was 2 m (S3 Fig). The verification period was from August 25, 2016 to December 31, 2016. The temperature field at the initial moment was obtained after interpolation based on the vertical water temperature measured in the reservoir area on August 25, 2016. The inflow water temperature and meteorological data were based on measured data. The water level, outflow and inflow were based on measured data from the Pangduo Hydrological Station. The calculation period was from August 25, 2016 to August 24, 2017. The inflow water temperature and meteorological data were based on measured data. The reservoir operation data adopted the designed operating conditions of the Pangduo Hydropower Station (S4 Fig).

To more clearly compare the thermal conditions between the reservoir on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau and those in the low- and medium-altitude regions, the same mathematical model was used to replace the water temperature and meteorological boundary of the reservoirs in the low-altitude area with an average altitude of 180 m at the same latitude (S5 Fig). During the calculation period, the average air temperature and inflow water temperature were higher (20.9°C and 19.9°C, respectively) and the solar radiation was lower (118.79 W/m2).

3.3 Thermal stratification evaluation index

We selected indicators to quantify the thermal stratification of water bodies and evaluate the characteristics of the stratified structure of the water temperature. The vertical water temperature gradient (VTG,°C/m) [49] and the buoyancy frequency (N, 1/s) [50] were calculated based on the water temperature calculation results of the vertical section in front of the dam.

VTG=T(z)z (1)
N=gρ0ρ(z)z (2)

where T(z) is the water temperature at depth z,°C; ρ(z) is the density at depth z, kg/m3, which is temperature dependent [45]; ρ0 is the average density of the whole water column, kg/m3; g is the acceleration of gravity, m/s2; and N is the important indicator used in limnology and oceanography and manmade reservoirs. The change trend of N can be used to evaluate the stratified stability of water columns. N indicates that in a stable temperature layered structure, the fluid particles move in the vertical direction after being disturbed. The combined effect of gravity and buoyancy always returns these factors to an equilibrium position, which oscillates due to inertia. The oscillation frequency can be understood as the exchange rate of water [50].

To better evaluate the changes in the stratification stability of the water column, the SI index, which reflects the stability of the deep water body, was used to evaluate the strength of the stratification stability of the reservoir [30].

SI=Z0Zl(ZZ¯)ρZdz (3)

where Z is the depth of the water column from the surface; Z0, Zl and Z¯ are the depths of the surface water, the lower end of the water column, and the centroid of the water column, respectively; and ρz is the water density at depth Z. SI can be converted into energy by multiplying by the acceleration of gravity and the volume of each layer, and it represents the ideal energy estimate of the entire water column to achieve mixing in the depth range without an increase or decrease in heat.

Water age (days) is defined as the persistence of water entering the reservoir from upstream and describes the duration of time that water remains in a water body. In the CE-QUAL-W2 model, we set the zero-order decay rate to –1 per day and zeroing out all other generic constituent kinetic parameters results in a state variable that increases by 1 per day, which provides an exact representation of the water age or hydraulic residence time [45].

3.4 Statistics and analysis

Microsoft Excel version 2010 was used for all the statistical analyses. We used the average absolute error, root-mean-square error (RMSE) and standard deviation (STD) to evaluate the goodness of the fitted temperature curve, as well as the differences between observed temperatures and simulated temperatures. A paired T-test was conducted to determine the significance levels of the differences of the (a) water temperature structure, (b) stratification stability index, and (c) buoyancy frequency between the low-altitude reservoir and the Pangduo Reservoir. A value of P<0.01 was reported as significant.

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Monitoring data analysis

Strong diurnal variation occurred in the vertical water temperature distribution within a range of 10–20 m from the surface upstream of the dam from August 25 to August 31, 2016 (S6 Fig). The typical study layers include the surface layer and layers at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 20, and 30 m below the surface. The daily variation in water temperature is shown in Table 3. The diurnal amplitude gradually decreased as the depth increased. The average daily variation in the surface layer over the 7 days was 4.1°C, with a range of 2.3°C ~ 5.7°C. The average daily variation was 0.7°C at a depth of 5 m below the surface layer, and the variation range was 0.4°C ~ 1.2°C. The average daily variation was 0.3°C at a depth of 30 m, which was only approximately 7.3% the value of the surface layer.

Table 3. Water temperature variation.

Date Air temperature variation/°C Inflow temperature variation/°C Water temperature variation/°C
0 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 30
2016/8/25 12.3 4.8 5.7 2.6 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.3
2016/8/26 9.6 4.5 3.9 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.6 0.5 1.1 0.3 0.3
2016/8/27 13.4 5.5 5.5 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4
2016/8/28 12.6 4.9 5.7 3.0 2.5 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4
2016/8/29 10.3 5.1 3.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.9 1.1 0.4 0.4
2016/8/30 6.8 5.2 2.3 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.3
2016/8/31 10.5 4.7 2.6 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.3
Average 10.8 5.0 4.1 1.7 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.3

4.2 Model calibration and validation

The calibration of the Pangduo Reservoir’s CE-QUAL-W2 model focused on several critical coefficients that had the greatest influence on the simulated temperature profiles upstream of the dam. The critical model parameters are the shading coefficients (ratio that allows incident shortwave solar radiation to reach the water surface in different segments due to topographic shelter), the wind sheltering coefficient (when multiplied by the wind speed, this coefficient reduces effects of the wind to take into account differences in the terrain between the measured station and the prototype site). The sensitivity analysis indicated that values of 0.8 for the shading coefficient (S7A Fig) and 1.0 for the wind sheltering coefficient (S7B Fig) were able to generate simulated temperature profiles with minimal discrepancies from the measured profiles.

We compared the calculated results and measured data for EXO2 upstream of the dam each month from August to December 2016 (S8 Fig). The validation period included the high temperature period in summer and the low temperature period before freezing. The results showed that the surface water temperature decreased from 14.5°C in late August to 4.6°C in December. The temperature variation trends of the epilimnion and metalimnion were consistent, and the temperature of the hypolimnion was generally well matched. The average error during the entire verification period was 0.1°C, the STD was 0.517°C, and the RMSE was 0.173°C. The scatter plot of the measured and calculated water temperature showed that the degree of dispersion of the error was small (S9 Fig). The determination coefficient between measured value and calculated value was 0.98. The results showed that the model can accurately simulate the influence of buoyancy flow and atmospheric heat exchange on the stratified structure of water temperature in the reservoir.

The ice variation was also considered in the calculations. The calculated results showed that the ice upstream of the dam began to appear in late December, and the maximum ice thickness appeared in mid-January, with a thickness of 0.35 m. The ice cover melted in late April (S10 Fig). The results showed that the growth, development and ablation of ice were in good agreement with the interpretation time obtained from the satellite images (S2 Fig).

4.3 Thermal structure characteristics

Fig 2 shows the two-dimensional distribution process of the water temperature (A), temperature gradient (B), buoyancy frequency (C), and water age (D) in front of the dam from August 25, 2016, to August 24, 2017. The results showed that the Pangduo Reservoir was a typical dimictic reservoir. The reservoir has two turnovers when the temperature differences between the surface and the bottom reach 0°C: one at the end of March and one at the end of October in autumn. After each major turnover, the reservoir area will maintain the same vertical temperature (4°C) for a period of time.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Vertical water temperature (A), gradient (B), buoyancy frequency (C), and water age (D) distribution in the calculation period of the Pangduo Reservoir.

From September to November 2016, the reservoir was in a cooling period. The surface water temperature decreased from 14.7°C to 7.2°C, and the vertical temperature difference of the reservoir decreased from 4.0°C to 0.2°C. The position of the thermocline mainly existed within 20 m of the surface layer, and the vertical temperature gradient (VTG) changed within 0.3°C/m, with an average of 0.08°C/m. The buoyancy frequency varied between 0.1 Hz and 0.6 Hz and presented a continuous unstable state, which was believed to be a diurnal thermocline phenomenon caused by the special meteorological and incoming water temperature changes on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. The water body in the reservoir was mainly replaced in the upper and middle layers. Its water age varied between 20 and 60 days. The retention time of the water at the bottom of the reservoir was relatively long at approximately 140 ~ 200 days; however, as the temperature of the inflow water decreased and the flow increased during the cooling period, vertical convection increased. At the end of October, the old water at the bottom of the reservoir was replaced and lifted.

Beginning in early December, the average daily temperature in the Pangduo area changed to a negative value and the water temperature in the reservoir began trending to a vertical mixing until the temperature decreased to 4°C. The water surface temperature below 4°C would soon drop to the freezing point to form the ice cover. When the surface temperature satisfied the condition of freezing, a static ice cover formed. The existence of ice caps transformed the heat exchange mode into the heat exchange between the surface water body and the bottom of the ice cap and the heat exchange between the atmosphere and the upper surface of the ice cap [51]. An inverted structure of the vertical water body appeared. The temperature of the surface water body of the reservoir was approximately 0.5°C, and the temperature of the bottom of the reservoir was maintained at 4.0°C. Near the intake, the buoyancy frequency varied from 0.2 s-1 to 0.3 s-1. With the decrease in the flow, the retention of the water body increased and advanced evenly to the front of the dam between 120 and 180 days.

In May 2017, as the air and inflow water temperature increased, the temperature of the surface water also increased. The water body with a certain thickness of the surface layer began to convect and then reached the same temperature as that of the whole reservoir at approximately 4.0°C. By the end of May, the surface water temperature continued to increase to 7.4°C. Water temperature stratification began to occur in the reservoir from June to August. The surface water temperature increased to 13.8°C by the end of August, and the vertical temperature difference expanded to 6.5°C. At this time, the buoyancy frequency variation range of the surface layer in the range of 20 m expanded from 0.1 s-1 to 0.6 s-1 and a diurnal thermocline appeared. With the increase in the flow and the buoyancy, the replacement of the surface water body began to increase, changing between 20 and 60 days. The water temperature at the bottom of the reservoir was low and the water density was high, and the mix and exchange of water with the upper water body was hindered. The water age began to increase up to 160 days. Compared with the retention time of warm monomictic reservoirs and lakes, the retention time was relatively short [52, 53]. Due to the weak stratification of the reservoir area and the existence of a diurnal thermocline in Pangduo Reservoir, the replacement of the upper and middle water bodies occurred sooner than that in warm monomictic reservoirs [35].

4.4 Diurnal characteristics analysis

To explore the characteristics of diurnal variations in reservoir water temperature during the high-temperature period, the simulation results on August 15, 2017 were selected as a representative day. On August 15, the air temperature fluctuated between 10.3°C and 20.7°C, with the lowest temperature at 7 a.m. and the highest temperature at 4 p.m. The simulated results showed that the characteristics of the diurnal changes upstream of the dam were strong. The mean variance of diurnal water temperature in the water column was 0.04, while it was 0.10 within 5 m. The surface water temperature ranged from 14.0°C to 15.1°C, with the buoyancy frequency varying from 0.0 s-1 to 0.6 s-1. Meanwhile, the diurnal range of water temperature at the depth of 20 m was 12.1°C to 12.7°C. The vertical temperature difference from the surface to 20 m was 1.2°C on average, with a range from 1.1°C to 2.2°C. This phenomenon occurred because the average net heat flux (Fig 3A) was -164.17 W/m2 during the period from 12 a.m. to 8 a.m. The surface water column lost heat and cooled, the density increased, the water column gradually mixed downward, and the water exchange rate increased. From 9 a.m. to 7 p.m., the average net heat flux of the surface water layer was 280.76 W/m2. The surface water column absorbed heat and warmed, and the buoyancy of surface water increased, which inhibited the vertical mixing of the water column. Only the diffusion effect was used to transfer heat to the lower water layers, and there was a strong vertical temperature gradient until the temperature differences reached its peak at 7 p.m. From 7 p.m. to 11 p.m., the average net heat flux of the surface water body was -129.00 W/m2 and the water body began to lose heat. This intraday thermal expansion and contraction will cause the mechanical disintegration of unstable structures due to gravity, leaving the surface water body in an unstable motion state [34].

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Diurnal distribution of net heat flux in front of the dam and inflow temperature (A) and buoyancy frequency in front of the dam (B) on August 15, 2017.

The diurnal variation in the tail section of the reservoir was strong. The inflow changed over the entire depth range, and the daily temperature differences at the surface layer and the bottom layer were both 1.1°C, which was very unique. The mixing mode was mainly controlled by the influent water temperature change (Fig 3A). The temperature of the inflow water fluctuated between 11.0°C and 15.6°C, with a daily change of 4.6°C. From 12 a.m. to 8 a.m., the average inflow water temperature was 13.8°C, and the inflow water invaded the reservoir horizontally. From 9 a.m. to 7 p.m., the average water temperature of the inflow affected by glacial recharge decreased to 12.4°C, the density of the water body increased, and a subsurface current gradually formed. From 8 p.m. to 11 p.m., the temperature of the inflow water increased, with an average value of 15.1°C. The density of the inflow water decreased, leaving the river bottom and transitioning to the surface. When the water flowed into the mid-reservoir, it was affected by the temperature stratified anisotropic buoyancy flow and the inflow water temperature no longer dominated. The inflow mixing mode experienced undercurrent horizontal-invaded flow and surface layer flow in one day (S1 File). However, for most warm monomictic reservoirs, the inflow temperature into the reservoir was stable and the surface water temperature was usually higher than the inflow water temperature. At this time, the inflow water body would dive into the layer of the same density and had a stable dive line [49].

The diurnal variation was weak in winter (S11 Fig). The variance within 5 m and the whole water column were both 0.00. The reservoir area was completely frozen in February, and the ice layer provided thermal protection for the water body such that the heat exchange method of the surface water layer changed from "water-air heat exchange" to "ice-water heat exchange" [54, 55]. The inflow water at the tail of the reservoir was close to 0°C. The water temperature structure of the Pangduo Reservoir remained inverted throughout the ice-sealing period with small differences.

4.5 Comparison with the low-altitude reservoirs at the same latitude

We selected August and December 2016 and March, June and September 2017 as the representative months, including the summer high temperature period, winter low temperature period and spring heating process. There were significant differences between the temperature structure of the low-altitude reservoir and the Pangduo Reservoir (P<0.01). The water temperature was always greater than 4°C of the low-altitude reservoir, indicating that it is a typical warm monomictic reservoir (Fig 4A). From September to December 2016, the surface temperature decreased from 28.3°C to 17.0°C, with the vertical temperature difference narrowing from 17.8°C to 8.6°C. By the winter of February 2017, the surface water temperature had decreased to 13.8°C and the vertical temperature difference had narrowed to 4.3°C. Then, the surface water temperature began to rise to 31.0°C by August, with the vertical temperature difference increasing to 21.6°C.

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Comparison of the vertical water temperature between the low-altitude reservoir and the Pangduo Reservoir in front of the dam during the calculation period (A). Comparison of SI changes between the Pangduo Reservoir and the low-altitude reservoir (B). The P value is the result of the paired T test.

During the warming period, the reservoir formed stable density stratification. Similar to most middle-low-altitude stratified reservoirs, the three-layer structure of the epilimnion, metalimnion and hypolimnion was maintained in front of the dam. The continuous decrease in air temperature during the cooling period cooled the surface water temperature, and the density of the surface water body increased. The sinking convection effect gradually deepened from the surface layer first. In winter, the water column was vertically flipped and mixed within a depth of 40 m in front of the dam. Due to the deep depth, the water body at the bottom of the reservoir was not completely replaced [56, 57].

Fig 4B shows a comparison of the SI changes between the Pangduo Reservoir and the low-altitude reservoir monthly. A bigger SI indicates that the greater energy required to achieve vertical mixing of the water column, represents the more stable stratification. Significant differences occurred between the SI of the low-altitude reservoir and the Pangduo Reservoir (P<0.01). The average annual SI of the low-altitude reservoir was 353.75 kg/m2 while that of the Pangduo Reservoir was 26.4 kg/m2, which was 7.46% that of the low-altitude reservoir. The annual variation range of the low-altitude reservoir was 43.03~712.68 kg/m2 while that of the Pangduo Reservoir was 0 ~ 93.13 kg/m2, which was 13.91% that of the low-altitude reservoir. Compared with the reservoir at the same latitude in the low-altitude area with the same regulation performance and scale, the reservoir on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau had shorter stratification periods and weaker stratification intensities.

The seasonal cycle of stratification and mixing of the two reservoirs was ultimately determined by the seasonal changes in the net heat flux received by the surface layer. From September to December 2016, the average net heat flux of the Pangduo Reservoir and the low-altitude reservoir was -57.38 W/m2 and -50.84 W/m2 (Fig 5), respectively. The reservoirs began to lose heat, and inverse stratification intensified; then, the density difference between the epilimnion and metalimnion decreased. Once the surface temperature decreased, the epilimnion thickened quickly, and because the temperature of the cooled surface layers was the same as a part of metalimnion, this part of the thermocline became the epilimnion [33]. Before the winter of April 2017, the Pangduo Reservoir was frozen upstream of the dam and the heat exchange method of the surface water layer changed from "water-air heat exchange" to "ice-water heat exchange". The average heat loss of the surface water was slight and stable (the mean was -25.27 W/m2). At the same time, the net heat flux was fluctuating and ranged from -160.80 W/m2 to 154.37 W/m2 in the low-altitude reservoir. From the end of April to August, the average net heat flux in the Pangduo Reservoir and the low-altitude reservoir were 37.11 W/m2 and 35.12 W/m2, respectively. The surface layer was endothermic, and the net heat flux was sufficient to make the difference in temperature and density between surface and deep layers [36].

Fig 5.

Fig 5

Comparison of the daily average heat budget of the surface water between the Pangduo Reservoir (A) and the low-altitude reservoir (B) during the calculated period.

Fig 6 shows the comparison of the diurnal heat budget of the surface water between the low-altitude reservoir and the Pangduo Reservoir on August 15, 2017. The epilimnion was affected by diurnal temperature fluctuations, heating during the daytime and cooling at night [58]. The net heat flux of the Pangduo Reservoir fluctuated drastically with a diurnal variation of 945.76 W/m2, that of the low-altitude reservoir was 71.8% that of the Pangduo Reservoir. The diurnal variation was positive between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. and reached the highest value at 1 p.m. in Pangduo Reservoir. Noticeable temperature increases and stratification was always observed in the epilimnion during sunlight hours [59]. Whether in the Pangduo Reservoir or the low-altitude reservoir, shortwave radiation had a greater impact on the net heat flux, which affected the trend and inflection point of the net heat flux. The shortwave radiation of the Pangduo Reservoir was strong, and the highest value of 898.34 W/m2 was observed at 1 p.m., while the shortwave radiation of the low-altitude reservoir had a high value of 542.92 W/m2 at 11 a.m. The net longwave radiation of the Pangduo Reservoir was generally smaller than that of the low-altitude reservoir, with an average daily difference of 35.5 W/m2. The evaporation heat flux accounted for a large proportion of heat loss, which was higher in the Pangduo Reservoir than the low-altitude reservoir. The average value was 125.58 W/m2 in the Pangduo Reservoir, which was 29.3% higher than that of the low-altitude reservoir. Heat conduction was slight in both the Pangduo Reservoir and low-altitude reservoir and caused differences in the amplitude and phase of the net heat flux.

Fig 6.

Fig 6

Comparison of diurnal heat budget of the surface water between the Pangduo Reservoir (A) and the low-altitude reservoir (B) on August 15, 2017.

Fig 7 shows a comparison of the daily variation in the buoyancy frequency of the water column in each layer in front of the dam in the low-altitude reservoir and the Pangduo Reservoir during the high-temperature period on August 15, 2017. Significant differences were observed between the daily variation in the buoyancy frequency of the low-altitude reservoir and the Pangduo Reservoir (P<0.01). In the low-altitude reservoir, the diurnal variation stayed within only 5 m of the surface layer and the average diurnal buoyancy frequency difference was 0.59 s-1. This finding was because the radiant heat loss from the surface layer at night was inadequate to transform sufficient potential energy into turbulent kinetic energy, such as in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau reservoir, thereby forming a turbulent penetrating convection effect. Similar to most low-altitude reservoirs, it still showed a stable buoyant flow regime [60, 61]. At the same time, the inflow water temperature in the low-altitude reservoir was stable and varied between 28.0°C and 28.3°C (S1 File). The inflow steadily entered the mainstream layer along the subduction line, which was different from the special intraday inflow mixing model of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau.

Fig 7. Comparison of the daily variation in the buoyancy frequency of the water column in each layer upstream of the dam in the low-altitude reservoir and the Pangduo Reservoir.

Fig 7

4.6 Response of the thermal regime to future climate warming

Many previous studies have shown that lakes and reservoirs are sensitive to climate changes [62]. A stratified thermal structure is a basic physical feature of deep lake reservoirs that affects the material exchange inside the water body, such as that of nutrients and dissolved oxygen [19, 22, 63]. Climate warming would change the thermal regime and mixing of lakes and reservoirs, strengthen thermal stratification during the summer, increase thermal stability, and lengthen the stratification period [20, 64]. The strengthened thermal stratification in summer would cause a series of environmental impacts, especially those involving dissolved oxygen [65]. The lengthened period of thermal stratification would increase the duration of oxygen stratification and affect oxygen consumption of the hypolimnion [66]. For deep lakes and reservoirs with seasonal vertical mixing, the mixing process after cessation of stratification is an important mechanism for oxygen supplementation in the hypolimnion [67].

The Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau has a simple ecological structure and exhibits slow growth of aquatic organisms. Therefore, climate change will have a greater impact on the aquatic ecology [3941]. Previous studies have shown that the stratification of lakes in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau increased by 6 days every 10 years under the conditions of climate warming [68]. However, man-made reservoirs formed by dams were similar to lakes and runoff, but their thermal regime and internal mixing mechanisms were different [69]. Further research is necessary to understand the impact of climate change on the thermal regime and mixing of man-made reservoirs on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. This research on the thermal regime of the Pangduo Reservoir has provided a relevant scientific basis and reference for the adaptive management of reservoirs on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau and similar high-altitude areas with regard to their response to climate change.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrated that the reservoir of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau is a typical dimictic reservoir, and the water column had two turnovers: one at the end of March and one at the end of October. The strong diurnal variation in the meteorology and the inflow mixing mode strengthened the vertical convection mixing in the epilimnion during the stratified period; thus, a diurnal thermocline appeared. The mean variance of diurnal water temperature in the water column was 0.04, while that within 5 m was 0.10. In winter, the diurnal variation was weak due to the thermal protection of the ice cover. Compared with the low-altitude reservoirs at the same latitude, which had the same regulating performance and scale, the thermal regime exhibited distinct differences. The reservoir of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau had a shorter stratification period and weaker stratification intensity than the low-altitude reservoir. The annual average SI value of the Pangduo Reservoir was 26.4 kg/m2, which was only 7.5% that of the low-altitude reservoir. The seasonal changes in the net heat flux received by the surface layers ultimately determined the seasonal cycle of stratification and mixing of the two reservoirs. In this study, variations in the thermal regime and diurnal variation inside the reservoir on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau were investigated, which provided helpful information for adaptive management and decision-making for similar reservoirs in cold and high-altitude areas.

Supporting information

S1 Fig

Temporal distribution of measured air temperature (A), solar radiation (B), and inflow water temperature (C Rezhenzangbu and D Wululong) in the study area.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Interpretation of the winter satellite film of the Pangduo Reservoir.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Model grid division schematic diagram.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Designed operating conditions of the Pangduo Hydropower station.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Air temperature and inflow water temperature distribution of the low-altitude reservoir during the calculated period.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Measured vertical water temperature changes from August 25, 2016 to August 31, 2016.

(TIF)

S7 Fig

Simulated temperature profiles at the section upstream to the Pangduo dam using three shades (A), three WSCs (B) and measured profiles on Sep. 15, 2016; Oct. 15, 2016; Nov. 22, 2016 and Dec. 15, 2016.

(TIF)

S8 Fig. Comparison of the calculated and measured water temperature in front of the dam (□ measured point).

(TIF)

S9 Fig. Measured and calculated water temperature scatter plot distribution.

(TIF)

S10 Fig. Variation process of the calculated ice thickness upstream of the dam.

(TIF)

S11 Fig. Longitudinal and vertical two-dimensional water temperature and flow field distribution in the Pangduo Reservoir on February 15, 2017.

(TIF)

S1 File. Inflow mixing mode videos and gifs between the Pangduo Reservoir and the low-altitude reservoir.

(ZIP)

Acknowledgments

We thank Minne Li, Jingying Lu, Hong Zhang, Wenyan He, and Jingting Wang for helpful discussions. We would also like to thank Ning Sun (academic editor), Hazel Bautista (handling editor) and three anonymous reviewers for providing comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (grant number2016YFC0502202) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant numbers 91547211).

References

  • 1.Alavian V, Jirka GH, Denton RA, Johnson MC, Stefan HG (1992) Density currents entering lakes and reservoirs. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 118: 1464–1489. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1992)118:11(1464) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Abdi R., Endreny T., & Nowak D. (2020). A model to integrate urban river thermal cooling in river restoration. Journal of Environmental Management, 258, 110023 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.110023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ketabchy M., Sample D. J., Wynn-Thompson T., & Yazdi M. N. (2019). Simulation of watershed-scale practices for mitigating stream thermal pollution due to urbanization. Science of The Total Environment. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.248 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Abdi R., & Endreny T. (2019). A River Temperature Model to Assist Managers in Identifying Thermal Pollution Causes and Solutions. Water, 11(5), 1060. https://doi:doi:10.3390/w11051060 [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mi C., Sadeghian A., Lindenschmidt K.-E., & Rinke K. (2019). Variable withdrawal elevations as a management tool to counter the effects of climate warming in Germany’s largest drinking water reservoir. Environmental Sciences Europe, 31(1). https://doi:10.1186/s12302-019-0202-4 [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lee R., Biggs T., & Fang X. (2018). Thermal and Hydrodynamic Changes under a Warmer Climate in a Variably Stratified Hypereutrophic Reservoir. Water, 10(9), 1284. https://doi:10.3390/w10091284 [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Becker V, Caputo L, Ordóñez J, Marcé R, Armengol J, et al. (2010) Driving factors of the phytoplankton functional groups in a deep Mediterranean reservoir. Water research 44: 3345–3354. 10.1016/j.watres.2010.03.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kraemer B. M., Anneville O., Chandra S., Dix M., Kuusisto E., Livingstone D. M., et al. (2015). Morphometry and average temperature affect lake stratification responses to climate change. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(12), 4981–4988. https://doi:10.1002/2015gl064097 [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Tierney JE, Mayes M, Meyer N, Johnson C, Swarzenski PW, et al. (2010) Late-twentieth-century warming in Lake Tanganyika unprecedented since AD 500. Nature Geoscience 3: 422–425. 10.1038/ngeo865 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Martin JL (1988) Application of two-dimensional water quality model. Journal of Environmental Engineering 114: 317–336. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1988)114:2(317) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Schwefel R., Gaudard A., Wüest A., & Bouffard D. (2016). Effects of climate change on deepwater oxygen and winter mixing in a deep lake (Lake Geneva): Comparing observational findings and modeling. Water Resources Research, 52(11), 8811–8826. https://doi:10.1002/2016wr019194 [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Labaj AL, Michelutti N, Smol JP (2016) Changes in cladoceran assemblages from tropical high mountain lakes during periods of recent climate change. Journal of Plankton Research 39: 211–219. 10.1093/plankt/fbw092 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Owens EM, Effler SW, Trama F (1986) Variability in thermal stratification in a reservoir. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 22(2), 219–227. 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1986.tb01878.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Weber M, Rinke K, Hipsey MR, Boehrer B (2017) Optimizing withdrawal from drinking water reservoirs to reduce downstream temperature pollution and reservoir hypoxia. Journal of environmental management 197: 96–105. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Vermeyen TB. Use of temperature control curtains to modify reservoir release temperatures; 1995 1995-01-01. ASCE; pp. 521–525. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lewis WM, Mccutchan JH, Roberson J (2019) Effects of Climatic Change on Temperature and Thermal Structure of a Mountain Reservoir. Water Resources Research 55: 1988–1999. 10.1029/2018WR023555 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Li Y, Huang T, Zhou Z, Long S, Zhang H (2017) Effects of reservoir operation and climate change on thermal stratification of a canyon-shaped reservoir, in northwest China. Water Science & Technology: Water Supply 18: 418–429. 10.2166/ws.2017.068 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Fischer HB, List JE, Koh CR, Imberger J, Brooks NH (2013) Mixing in inland and coastal waters: Elsevier; 10.1016/B978-0-08-051177-1.50005-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Zhang Y, Wu Z, Liu M, He J, Shi K, et al. (2015) Dissolved oxygen stratification and response to thermal structure and long-term climate change in a large and deep subtropical reservoir (Lake Qiandaohu, China). Water Research 75: 249–258. 10.1016/j.watres.2015.02.052 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.He W, Lian J, Zhang J, Yu X, Chen S (2019) Impact of intra-annual runoff uniformity and global warming on the thermal regime of a large reservoir. Science of The Total Environment 658: 1085–1097. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.207 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Xie Q, Liu Z, Chen Y, Chen X (2019) Internal waves in a deep run-of-river reservoir under hydro-peaking. Journal of Hydroelectric Engineering 38: 41–51. 10.11660/slfdxb.20190105 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zhang Y, Wu Z, Liu M, He J, Shi K, et al. (2014) Thermal structure and response to long‐term climatic changes in Lake Qiandaohu, a deep subtropical reservoir in China. Limnology and Oceanography 59: 1193–1202. 10.4319/lo.2014.59.4.1193 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Saber A, James DE, Hayes DF (2018) Effects of seasonal fluctuations of surface heat flux and wind stress on mixing and vertical diffusivity of water column in deep lakes. Advances in water resources 119: 150–163. 10.1016/j.advwatres.2018.07.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Huang L, Wang J, Zhu L, Ju J, Daut G (2017) The warming of large lakes on the Tibetan Plateau: Evidence from a lake model simulation of Nam Co, China, during 1979–2012. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 122: 13–95. 10.1002/2017JD027379 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Magee MR, Wu CH (2017) Response of water temperatures and stratification to changing climate in three lakes with different morphometry. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 21: 6253–6274. 10.5194/hess-2016-262 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Butcher JB, Nover D, Johnson TE, Clark CM (2015) Sensitivity of lake thermal and mixing dynamics to climate change. Climatic Change 129: 295–305. 10.1007/s10584-015-1326-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lerman A, Imboden DM, Gat JR, Chou L (1995) Physics and chemistry of lakes: Springer-Verlag; Berlin: 10.1002/iroh.19960810312 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Norton GE, Bradford A (2009) Comparison of two stream temperature models and evaluation of potential management alternatives for the Speed River, Southern Ontario. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 866–878. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.02.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Liu M, Zhang Y, Shi K, Zhu G, Wu Z, et al. (2019) Thermal stratification dynamics in a large and deep subtropical reservoir revealed by high-frequency buoy data. Science of the Total Environment 651: 614–624. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.215 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sahoo GB, Forrest AL, Schladow SG, Reuter JE, Coats R, et al. (2016) Climate change impacts on lake thermal dynamics and ecosystem vulnerabilities. Limnology and Oceanography 61: 496–507. 10.1002/lno.10228 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jan-Tai K, Wu J, Wen-sen C (1994) Water quality simulation of Te-Chi Reservoir using two-dimensional models. Water Science and technology 30: 63 10.2166/wst.1994.0029 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Tuo Y, Li J, Deng Y, Liang R. Effects of water temperature on spawning ground of Chinese Sturgeon in Three Gorges Reservoir; 2011 2011-01-01. IEEE; pp. 5916–5919. 10.1016/j.coldregions.2017.08.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Vercauteren N, Huwald H, Bou Zeid E, Selker JS, Lemmin U, et al. (2011) Evolution of superficial lake water temperature profile under diurnal radiative forcing. Water resources research 47 10.1029/2010WR009451 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.MacIntyre S, Romero JR, Kling GW (2002) Spatial‐temporal variability in surface layer deepening and lateral advection in an embayment of Lake Victoria, East Africa. Limnology and oceanography 47: 656–671. 10.4319/lo.2002.47.3.0656 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Imberger J. (1985). The diurnal mixed layer1. Limnology and Oceanography, 30(4), 737–770. https://doi:10.4319/lo.1985.30.4.0737 [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Van Emmerik T, Rimmer A, Lechinsky Y, Wenker K, Nussboim S, et al. (2013) Measuring heat balance residual at lake surface using Distributed Temperature Sensing. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods 11: 79–90. 10.4319/lom.2013.11.79 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ding Y, Ye B, Han T, Shen Y, Liu S (2007) Regional difference of annual precipitation and discharge variation over west China during the last 50 years. Science in China Series D: Earth Sciences 50: 936–945. 10.1007/s11430-007-0042-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.You Q, Kang S, Wu Y, Yan Y (2007) Climate change over the Yarlung Zangbo river basin during 1961–2005. Journal of Geographical Sciences 17: 409–420. 10.1007/s11442-007-0409-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Wang XD, Zhong XH, Liu SZ, Liu JG, Wang ZY, et al. (2008) Regional assessment of environmental vulnerability in the Tibetan Plateau: Development and application of a new method. Journal of Arid environments 72: 1929–1939. 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2008.06.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Li XY, Ma YJ, Xu HY, Wang JH, Zhang DS (2009) Impact of land use and land cover change on environmental degradation in Lake Qinghai watershed, northeast Qinghai‐Tibet Plateau. Land Degradation & Development 20: 69–83. 10.1002/ldr.885 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zhu L, Wang J, Ju J, Ma N, Zhang Y, et al. (2019) Climatic and lake environmental changes in the Serling Co region of Tibet over a variety of timescales. Science Bulletin 64: 422–424. 10.1016/j.scib.2019.02.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Xu M, Wang Z, Pan B, Gong T, Liu L (2012) Research on assemblage characteristics of macroinvertebrates in the Yalu Tsangpo River Basin. Shengtai Xuebao/Acta Ecologica Sinica 32: 2351–2360. 10.5846/stxb201102220200 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Wang J, Zhu L, Daut G, Ju J, Lin X, et al. (2009) Investigation of bathymetry and water quality of Lake Nam Co, the largest lake on the central Tibetan Plateau, China. Limnology 10: 149–158. 10.1007/s10201-009-0266-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Benyahya L., St-Hilaire A., Quarda T. B. M. J., Bobée B., & Ahmadi-Nedushan B. (2007). Modeling of water temperatures based on stochastic approaches: case study of the Deschutes River. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science, 6(4), 437–448. https://doi:10.1139/s06-067 [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Cole TM, Buchak EM (2003) CE-QUAL-W2: A Two-Dimensional, Laterally Averaged, Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model, Version 2.0. User Manual: Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty Publications and Presentations. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Rangel-Peraza J. G., Obregon O., Nelson J., Williams G. P., de Anda J., González-Farías F., et al. (2012). Modelling approach for characterizing thermal stratification and assessing water quality for a large tropical reservoir. Lakes & Reservoirs: Research & Management, 17(2), 119–129. https://doi:10.1111/j.1440-1770.2012.00503.x [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Mooij W. M., Trolle D., Jeppesen E., Arhonditsis G., Belolipetsky P. V., Chitamwebwa D. B. R., et al. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for integrating lake ecosystem modelling approaches. Aquatic Ecology, 44(3), 633–667. https://doi:10.1007/s10452-010-9339-3 [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Debele B., Srinivasan R., & Parlange J.-Y. (2006). Coupling upland watershed and downstream waterbody hydrodynamic and water quality models (SWAT and CE-QUAL-W2) for better water resources management in complex river basins. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 13(1), 135–153. https://doi:10.1007/s10666-006-9075-1 [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Xie Q, Liu Z, Fang X, Chen Y, Li C, et al. (2017) Understanding the temperature variations and thermal structure of a subtropical deep river-run reservoir before and after impoundment. Water 9: 603 10.3390/w9080603 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Dake JM, Harleman DR (1969) Thermal Stratification in Lakes: Analytical and Laboratory Studies. Water Resour. Res.: 484–495. 10.1029/WR005i002p00484 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Li N, Tuo Y, Deng Y, An R, Li J, et al. (2018) Modeling of thermodynamics of ice and water in seasonal ice-covered reservoir. Journal of Hydrodynamics 30: 267–275. 10.1007/s42241-018-0035-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Li Y, Acharya K, Yu Z (2011) Modeling impacts of Yangtze River water transfer on water ages in Lake Taihu, China. Ecological Engineering 37: 325–334. 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.11.024 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Li Y, Acharya K, Chen D, Stone M (2010) Modeling water ages and thermal structure of Lake Mead under changing water levels. Lake and Reservoir Management 26: 258–272. 10.1080/07438141.2010.541326 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Oveisy A, Boegman L, Imberger J (2012) Three‐dimensional simulation of lake and ice dynamics during winter. Limnology and Oceanography 57: 43–57. 10.4319/lo.2012.57.1.0043 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Tuo Y, Deng Y, Li J, Li N, Li K, et al. (2018) Effects of dam reconstruction on thermal-ice regime of Fengman Reservoir. Cold Regions Science and Technology 146: 223–235. 10.1016/j.coldregions.2017.08.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Han B, Armengol J, Garcia JC, Comerma M, Roura M, et al. (2000) The thermal structure of Sau Reservoir (NE: Spain): a simulation approach. Ecological Modelling 125: 109–122. 10.1016/s0304-3800(99)00176-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Arfi R (2005) Seasonal ecological changes and water level variations in the Sélingué Reservoir (Mali, West Africa). Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 30: 432–441. 10.1016/j.pce.2005.06.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Stainsby EA, Winter JG, Jarjanazi H, Paterson AM, Evans DO, et al. (2011) Changes in the thermal stability of Lake Simcoe from 1980 to 2008. Journal of Great Lakes Research 37: 55–62. 10.1016/j.jglr.2011.04.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Rueda-Valdivia FJ, Schladow G (2009) Mixing and stratification in lakes of varying horizontal length scales: Scaling arguments and energy partitioning. Limnology & Oceanography 54: 2003–2017. 10.4319/lo.2009.54.6.2003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Ma W, Huang T, Li X, Zhang H, Ju T (2015) Impact of short-term climate variation and hydrology change on thermal structure and water quality of a canyon-shaped, stratified reservoir. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 22: 18372–18380. 10.1007/s11356-015-4764-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Livingstone DM (2003) Impact of secular climate change on the thermal structure of a large temperate central European lake. Climatic change 57: 205–225. 10.1023/A:1022119503144 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Woolway RI, Merchant CJ (2019) Worldwide alteration of lake mixing regimes in response to climate change. Nature Geoscience 12: 271–276. 10.1038/s41561-019-0322-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Rogora M, Buzzi F, Dresti C, Leoni B, Salmaso N (2018) Climatic effects on vertical mixing and deep-water oxygen content in the subalpine lakes in Italy. Hydrobiologia. 10.1007/s10750-018-3623-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Boehrer B, Schultze M (2008) Stratification of lakes. Reviews of Geophysics 46: G2005 10.1029/2006RG000210 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Coats R, Perez-Losada J, Schladow G, Richards R, Goldman C (2006) The Warming of Lake Tahoe. Climatic Change 76: 121–148. 10.1007/s10584-005-9006-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Brian F, Ian DJ, Stephen CM, Brian R (2011) Long-term changes in oxygen depletion in a small temperate lake: effects of climate change and eutrophication. Freshwater Biology. 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02662.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Sahoo GB, Schladow SG, Reuter JE, Coats R, Dettinger M, et al. (2013) The response of Lake Tahoe to climate change. Climatic Change 116: 71–95. 10.1007/s10584-012-0600-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Wang J, Huang L, Ju J, Daut G, Ma Q, et al. (2020) Seasonal stratification of a deep, high-altitude, dimictic lake: Nam Co, Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Hydrology 584: 124668 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124668 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Hayes NM, Deemer BR, Corman JR, Razavi NR, Strock KE (2017) Key differences between lakes and reservoirs modify climate signals: A case for a new conceptual model. Limnology & Oceanography Letters 2 10.1002/lol2.10036 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

NING Sun

11 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-19898

Study of the thermal regime of a reservoir on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Deng,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 25 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

NING Sun

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Study of the thermal regime of a reservoir on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China

Review comments:

The CE-QUAL-W2 model is used to explore the typical thermal regime of a stratified reservoir on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau (Pangduo Reservoir). The study is interesting, and the modeling results are useful for the scientific understanding of the thermal dynamics in stratified reservoirs under the special geographical and meteorological conditions on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. The paper is well organized, and the results are well presented and discussed. However, after screening the manuscript, I think there are still some points that can be improved. The detailed comments are as follows:

(1)In the Introduction, the CE-QUAL-W2 model should be mentioned in line 14 as it is a famous model.

(2)In lines 72-79, the authors should briefly list the reasons that why CE-QUAL-W2 model is used.

(3)I suggest the authors to summarize all the governing equations (1-8) to a table.

(4)Model grid deserves a figure.

(5)The authors should improve the conclusion section to make it more precise.

Based on the above comments, a minor revision is needed.

Reviewer #2: This study adapted CE-QUAL-w2 and simulated the 2-D sub-daily thermal structure of a high-altitude reservoir in Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. The authors aim to further our understanding of a reservoir’s diurnal variation of a dimictic reservoir. Generally speaking, this draft is very raw and requires much work. I will reject it. However, the topic is interesting so I recommend resubmission.

Detailed comments are attached below.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript explains the thermal regime of a reservoir in Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, China using the CE-QUAL-W2 model. The authors have used this 2D model in order to simulate the water temperature structure in the reservoir and verified their simulations against observed data. The authors found that the model could accurately simulate the water temperature and reported that the solar radiation was the major driver for the reservoir’s behavior with a shorter stratification period and weaker stratification stability. Some concerns first should be addressed. I have provided some broader comments here and some detailed comments in the attached document, all should be addressed properly.

General Comments:

1-Overall, I couldn’t find something new in the manuscript and based on the defined objective. If there is something that the authors think it was the key finding, they should clearly mention that in the text, in different parts of the manuscript.

2-The abstract doesn’t have even one sentence referring to the findings in a quantitative way. This is not acceptable. The authors should provide several interesting findings in a numerical way including different kinds of comparisons with percent change, R2, or p-value.

3-From the abstract, it seems the authors haven’t used a systematic statistical analysis. I would suggest they use a paired t-test and report the p-values.

4-The last paragraph of the introduction should include the main part of the manuscript representing the target, contribution, and science questions the manuscript is trying to answer. The current form of this paragraph is not informative enough and doesn’t have the required sections. The authors, for example, could address my first comment here. They also need to provide some explicit science questions in that paragraph and answer that in the results and discussion and highlight those findings in the abstract.

5-The authors have discussed the validation process and period in the methods however, there is no explanation about the calibration. What period and parameters have been used for the calibration and what was the stats out of the process against the validation? These all should be explained in the manuscript.

6-The results section includes several sub-sections at the beginning that are methods for me. This includes Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Table 2. Please see my detailed comments in the attached document for more information.

7-The authors need to provide a subsection in the results to explain the sensitivity of the simulations in a systemic way. What was the most sensitive parameter for the simulations?

8-The manuscript (especially in the results section) includes too many figures and I believe some of them (For example Figs. 2 -5) could be moved to the supplementary material file.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review comments.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Yang_et_al_2020.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-19898_reviewer.pdf

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 21;15(12):e0243198. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243198.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Sep 2020

Dear reviewer1,

We are grateful for the constructive comments and suggestions. Based on your comments, we revised the relevant content in the manuscript.

Our point-by-point responses to your comments are provided below.

1): In the Introduction, the CE-QUAL-W2 model should be mentioned in line 14 as it is a famous model.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 1:

Thank you so much for your constructive suggestion. We added the CE-QUAL-W2 model in line 11 and reorganized the Abstract.

2): In lines 72-79, the authors should briefly list the reasons that why CE-QUAL-W2 model is used.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 2:

Thank you so much for your suggestion. We listed the reasons for using CE-QUAL-W2 in lines 83-89 and added relevant references in the Introduction.

3): I suggest the authors to summarize all the governing equations (1-8) to a table.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 3:

Thank you for your suggestion. We summarized all the governing equations in Table 2 in line 163.

4): Model grid deserves a figure.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 4:

Thank you so much for your comment. We added a figure to the model grid in the Supporting information (S3 Fig).

5): The authors should improve the conclusion section to make it more precise.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 4:

Thank you so much for your constructive comment. We reorganized the Conclusions in lines 407-420 according to your suggestion.

Dear reviewer2,

We are grateful for the constructive comments and suggestions. Based on your comments, we revised the relevant content in the manuscript. We reorganized the manuscript as you suggested.

(1) We added section numbers.

(2) We reorganized the Introduction according to your comments.

(3) We explained the reasons for selecting the three metrics (VTG, N, and SI) and added relevant references.

(4) We sent our manuscript to a professional English editing service (American Journal Experts (AJE), USA) to improve the English throughout the manuscript. AJE has made changes to reflect standard conventions for phrasing, grammar, and punctuation, and we ensured that the intended meaning has been maintained. We modified our manuscript according to your constructive comments, conducted relevant statistical significance tests and reported the P values. Moreover, we added a sensitivity analysis section of the model.

(5) We reorganized and interpreted the results according to your comments.

Our point-by-point responses to your comments are provided below.

Abstract:

1): Line 9: “…meteorological characteristics with low temperature…” it is better to clarify ‘low air temperature’ because it can be confused with reservoir water temperature.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 1:

Thank you for this suggestion. We modified this text in line 9.

2): Line 13: Please simply explain what a “dimictic reservoir” is. This term is not commonly acknowledged.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 2:

Thank you for your constructive comment. The dimictic reservoir is covered with ice during part of the year and stratified in the other part, with two mixed periods in between. We specified the mixed period in line 17 and explained the “dimictic reservoir” in lines 66-67 in the Introduction.

3): Please provide a summary of your model performance. Do not use the statement, i.e., “the model accurately simulated…”. Readers can determine whether your model is accurate or not based on your model performance summary.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 3:

Thank you for this suggestion. We provided the quantitative results of the model validation in lines 13-14 in the Abstract.

Introduction:

4): “Moreover, early research focused primarily on regional differences.” I don’t think this is correct.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 4:

Thank you so much for your suggestion. We meant to express the difference between the diurnal variations of tropical and temperate reservoirs. We rewrote this part in lines 61-68 and added relevant references.

5): Line 38: “however, the lack of detailed data samples and perfect research methods reflect certain existing limitations” This statement is ambiguous, and no research methods are perfect.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 5:

Thank you for your comment. We agree with your idea. We rewrote this part and supplemented the model methods used in related research and relevant references in lines 83-89.

6): Line 62-64: Wordy. I would recommend changing to “the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau is ecologically vulnerable to human activities and environmental changes.”

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 6:

Thank you for your recommendation. We replaced the text in lines 74-75.

7): Line 69: “few scientists seem to be aware”. It is not proper to use “seem to be” in a scientific paper.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 7:

Thank you so much for your reminder. We modified this part according to your suggestions in lines 81-82.

8): Some sentences are very long and hard to follow, e.g., Line 47-49, Line 72-75, and Line 76-79.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 8:

We rewrote these sentences in lines 53-55, lines90-97.

9): Line 46: "variable temperature layer" suggesting as "thermocline".

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 9:

We replaced this (line 48).

Study area:

10): Line 85: What is a “controlling project”?.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 10:

“Controlling project” here refers to controlled water conservancy projects, which are projects constructed for the purpose of controlling and arranging surface water and groundwater in the natural world to eliminate harm and provide benefits. We rewrote this part in lines 102-104 for clarification.

11): Line 86: What is a normal storage level? Is it necessary in this study?

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 11:

Normal water storage levels refer to the highest water level stored by the reservoir under safe operation conditions. We deleted this phrase, and the engineering characteristics of the reservoir have been reorganized in lines 104-111.

12): Line 87-88: Unit for “total water area” is wrong. Additionally, the water area and depth in front of dam should vary with the amount of water stored in reservoirs.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 12:

Thank you for your reminder. We corrected the unit error in line 111. The water area and depth do vary with the water stored in reservoirs. We rewrote this part in lines 108-111.

13): Line 97: Please switch Rezhenzangbu and Wululong to be consistent with Figure numbering..

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 13:

We switched them in line 120.

14): Table 1: B1: Please use “Upstream of dam” instead of “In front of dam”.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 14:

Thank you for your suggestion. We replaced this text in Table 1 and other relevant places.

Mathematical models and methods:

15): Line 119-121: Try not to use passive voice.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 15:

Thank you for your suggestion. We rewrote this text in lines 152-153.

16): Line 123: What variables are you referring to?.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 16:

The variables specifically refer to the flow velocity and the dispersion coefficient along the width of the river, which have been ignored in the equations.

17): Line 133: “…, Bη the water surface width” where η should be subscript

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 17:

Thank you for your reminder. We corrected this text (Table 2).

18): Line 134: is �� and �GY "# the same thing? If so, can you make the notation consistent in this paper?

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 18:

Thank you for your comments. They are not the same parameter: �� is the heat transfer source term between water bodies and �GY is the heat exchange term between water and air.

19): Line139: please add reference for this equation.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 19:

Reference 46 is the source of these governing equations. We added this text in line 160.

20): Line 144: Following terms i.e., the longitudinal eddy viscosity coefficient and the longitudinal eddy current diffusion coefficient, do not occur anywhere in previous context. Are you referring to longitudinal and vertical dispersion coefficients as in Line 134? If so, please be consistent with terminology throughout the paper. Additionally, please explain why you chose those two values.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 20:

Thank you for your comments. This part has been deleted. We added content on the parameter calibration in lines 210-217.

21): Line 146: What is formula W2N?

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 21:

Thank you for your comments. This part has been deleted. The W2N formula is a mixed length formula, which is one of the calculation formulas for the vertical vortex viscosity coefficient. It does not belong to the governing equation and has been deleted in the manuscript.

22): Line 164: “Although N is the convention used in limnology and oceanography, reservoirs are similar.” The buoyancy frequency has been used in manmade reservoirs for a very long time, e.g., Snodgrass& O’Melia (1975), Niemeyer et al., (2018).

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 22:

Thank you for your comments and recommended references. We rewrote this sentence in line 180.

23): 11: I think it is more generalizable to use an integral instead of summing.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 23:

Thank you for your suggestion. We wrote this as an integral instead in equation 10.

24): Line 177-179: I don’t understand.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 24:

Water age (days) depicts the duration of time that water has stayed in a waterbody, and it is defined as the persistence of water after it enters a reservoir from upstream. In the Pangduo CE-QUAL-W2 model, we set a virtual constituent as a state variable that has an initial value of 0 when entering the reservoir and decays by 1 per day and does not interact with any other water quality state variables. This variable represents the water age. By using the water age, we can identify the transport of the inflow water and the corresponding mixing processes. The water age of new water flowing into the reservoir is always less than the age of the ambient water already in the reservoir. For instance, in the case of overflow in a reservoir, the fresher water in the upper layer has a lower water age than the ambient water in the lower layers.

Results and discussion:

25): Line 182: Mean annual air temperature? Be specific

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 25:

Thank you for your suggestion. We reorganized this part in lines 129-130 according to your comments.

26): Fig. 6 can be as supplemental information.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 26:

Thank you for your suggestion. Fig 6 has been renamed Fig S4 of the Supplementary material. The manuscript has also been modified accordingly (line 172).

27): Line 186-189: You mentioned solar radiation twice with description of longwave radiation in between. Please do not go back and forth and explain solar radiation first and then longwave radiation. Also why do you only explain the diurnal variation of solar radiation only? Why not talk about the diurnal variation of longwave radiation?

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 27:

Thank you for your suggestion. We rewrote this part in lines 132-135. Here, we mainly explain the monitoring data of our measured site. Longwave radiation was not part of our monitoring project; thus, it was not explained here.

28): Line 193: Define “daily variation”. How do you calculate that? This is an important variable and used many times in this study. A definition is necessary.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 28:

Thank you so much for your suggestion. Diurnal variation has been defined in the Introduction in lines 56-58, and it specifically refers to the epilimnion heated during the daytime and cooled at night and is subject to the influence of temperature fluctuation every day and night. We used indexes (VTG, N) and statistical methods for the evaluation.

29): Line 198: Be careful with the word “significant”. This word usually implies that the authors have conducted a statistical significance test and the trend/result they find is statistically “significant”. “Strong diurnal variation” is better.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 29:

Thank you for this reminder. We replaced this term with “strong” in line 201 and modified other similar situations in the manuscript.

30): Line 210-212 As shown in Table 1, measured vertical water temperature was available from 08/25/2016 to 08/31/2016. How did you get measured temperature data for 09/15, 10/15, 11/22, and 12/15? Additionally, as shown in Figure 3, the temperature difference between depth at 0 m and depth at 30 m can be as large as 8 degree Celsius. It is incorrect to say, “temperature stratification of the reservoir is weak,” since reservoirs should be more stratified at warmer seasons. Based on Section Monitoring data analysis, hottest month is July, so it would make the model more convincing if we can see the model performance for a hot July day. I am not sure whether that data is available or not, but an alternative way is to show the model performance for 08/25 to 08/31 when thermal stratification is stronger than 09/15.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 30:

Thank you so much for your suggestion. The temperature data for 09/15, 10/15, 11/22, and 12/15 were measured by EXO2 (Table 1) during manual monitoring times, and we explained the data source in lines 218-219. We agree that “temperature stratification of the reservoir is weak” is inappropriate here, and we modified it in lines 219-220. Unfortunately, we do not have the profile monitoring data for July. In the model verification, we added the vertical water temperature comparison between August 25 and August 30 (S7 Fig) and re-analyzed the error in lines 222-224.

31): Line 215-216: The metric shown in the paper is also misleading since the errors can be diluted by the winter days when thermal stratification is weak. For example, we can see that, on 09/15/2016, model simulated a stronger stratification than the measurement (Figure 4).

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 31:

Thank you for your comments. In fact, excluding the winter data, the absolute error was 0.27℃, relative error was 2.2%, standard deviation was 0.369 and root mean square error was 0.478℃; thus, the data can illustrate the accuracy of the simulation. The situation you mentioned does exist because the model itself cannot perfectly reflect the actual process, although the temperature distribution and change process are acceptable. We also redrew Fig 4.

32): Figure 5: I cannot tell the model performance from this plot. This only shows the model simulation result. Please show measurement in this plot.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 32:

Thank you so much for your comments. Because of engineering limitations and researcher safety considerations, we do not have measured data for the winter icing period. Therefore, we obtained the ice process in the study area through satellite pictures, and ice was also considered in the model. Judging from the time of freezing and melting, the values were consistent, which shows that the process of thermal budget was consistent. We rewrote this part in lines 229-232 and moved Fig 4 to the Supporting information (S9 Fig).

33): Line 240: Be consistent with the unit of Buoyance Frequency (N). You defined the unit of N as 1/s in Line 159.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 33:

Thank you so much for your reminders. We replaced it in line 267 and checked and revised other similar text in the manuscript.

34): Line 249-250: Expression is unprofessional. Please rephrase.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 34:

Thank you so much for your suggestion. We rephrased the expression in lines 253-256.

35): Line 269: Sooner than what?

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 35:

Thank you so much for your suggestion. We rewrote this sentence in lines 272-274.

36): Line 269-270: The retention time of reservoirs is irrelevant to elevations. Retention time is a measure of how long water resides in reservoirs, roughly depending on reservoir storage and outflow. Reservoirs at low altitude can have either very short or very long residence times. You may refer to Cheng et al. (2020), Yearsley et al. (2019), Yigzaw et al. (2019).

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 36:

Thank you for your comments and recommendations. We agree with you that the retention time of reservoirs is irrelevant to the elevation but related to the thermal regime. We meant to express the difference between warm monomictic reservoirs and dimictic reservoirs; thus, we rewrote this part in lines 270-274.

37): Line 280: If the authors did not conduct statistical significance test, please use “strong” or other words instead of “significant”.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 37:

Thank you for your suggestion. We replaced the text and performed a variance analysis in lines 281-282.

38): Line 285: If the time step is hourly, the minutes are not necessary, i.e., 8AM will do. Additionally, please use 12AM instead of 0AM.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 38:

Thank you for your reminder. We modified the text and checked the other text in the manuscript and relevant figures.

39): Second paragraph in Section Diurnal characteristics analysis is poorly organized and hard to follow. The authors jump back-and-forth between top 5-m range and top 20-m range, so the values are hard to be compared across different time slots.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 39:

Thank you for your suggestion. We reorganized this analysis according to your comments in lines 282-295.

40): Figure 7 is boring and not informative.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 40:

Thank you for your suggestion. We carefully considered your suggestions, re-produced the GIF and videos to support the analysis here (S1 File), and re-analyzed the inflow mode in lines 303-309.

41): Line 310-311: Recommend not using one sentence as a paragraph Figure 9 is boring. The authors can simply say that diurnal variation is weak in winter...

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 41:

Thank you for your reminder. We corrected the text and re-analyzed this part in lines 310-315 according to your comments. Fig 9 has been deleted in the manuscript and moved to the Supporting material (S10 Fig).

42): Figure 10: Why is there no shortwave radiation from 12/23/2016 to 04/22/2017? Figure S1 shows that at least one-third of reservoir surface was not covered with ice even at coldest time (02/18/2017). In CE-QUAL-w2 model, did you assume that all reservoir surfaces are uniformly covered with ice?

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 42:

Thank you for your comments. The result of the heat budget here is the section upstream of the dam (Fig1 B1). This section was frozen during the monitoring period; therefore, shortwave radiation was not considered during this period. The model does not assume that all sections are covered by ice. We modified this part in lines 356-369.

43): Line 356: How to interpret SI value? Does bigger value mean less stability?

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 42:

Thank you so much for your comments. A bigger SI indicates that greater energy is required to achieve vertical mixing of the water column and represents the more stable stratification. We provided an explanation and performed relevant statistical analyses in lines 343-351.

Dear reviewer3,

We greatly appreciate the constructive comments and suggestions. We have reorganized the manuscript as you suggested.

(1) We rewrote the Abstract in a quantitative way according to your comments, defined the objective and highlighted our findings.

(2) We performed a paired t test to analyze the relevant results and reported the P values.

(3) We carefully considered your suggestions for the Introduction and modified it with the required sections as you mentioned.

(4) We supplemented the calibration process in the manuscript and the relevant figure and explained the sensitivity of the simulations.

(5) We reorganized the structure of the manuscript and moved some figures (Figs 2-5) to the supplementary material file according to your comments.

Our point-by-point responses to your comments are below.

1): Lines 14-16: Provide numerical results here.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 1:

Thank you for this suggestion. We modified it with quantitative results in line 13-14.

2): Lines 16-17: What was the dT? What was the percent change compared to winter time?

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 2:

Thank you for your comment. We added the results of the analysis of variance here for illustration purposes in lines 18-19.

3): Line 18: What was the number?

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 3:

We added the results of the analysis of variance in lines 20-22.

4): Lines 19-20: Provide the percentages.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 4:

Thank you for your suggestion. We added percentages and the P values of the paired t test in lines 22-25.

5): Lines 20-21: Again support this argument with quantitative results.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 5:

Thank you for your comment. We rewrote this part in lines 25-26.

6): Line 8: Please see my comments in the 1st page.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 6:

Thank you for your constructive recommend. We reorganized it according to your comments. We clarified the research objective and key findings and referenced the results in a quantitative way (lines 9-29).

7): Line 28: Checking your references in this paragraph, they are mostly old and out of date. Use some newly published papers in the field, here are some examples:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.110023

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.248

https://doi.org/10.3390/w11051060.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 7:

Thank you so much for your reminder and recommendations. We added these recommended references and replaced some outdated references in the Introduction (references 2-6, 8, 11, 45, 47-49).

8): Line 75: Mention the name of the model in the abstract as well

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 8:

We mentioned the name in the Abstract in line 11.

9): Line 92: You should provide a more informative caption and clearly mention the location of the reservoirs separately in the map and in the caption.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 9:

Thank you for your suggestions. We rewrote this part with more specific information, defined the location in lines 102-113, and re-drew Fig 1.

10): Line 117: This in the 3rd time I am seeing this in the text. You should avoid redundancy in the text. Consider this and similar issues throughput the manuscript.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 10:

Thank you so much for your suggestions. We have reorganized this paragraph in lines 151-158 and checked and revised similar issues in the manuscript carefully. We have also sent our manuscript to a professional English editing service (American Journal Experts (AJE), USA) to improve the English throughout the manuscript.

11): Line 120: Provide a proper citation for the model.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 11:

We have added the reference (Reference 46) and revised the text in line 153.

12): Line 126: If you haven't updated any of the following equations, you don't have to provide all of them as they are already published and accessible. You can remove some or all of them or send them to a supplementary material file to save some space.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 12:

Thank you so much for your suggestions. The governing equations were still retained for easy of reference, but we have summarized the governing equations (1-8) to Table 2 to save space.

13): Line 150: How about calibration?

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 13:

We have supplemented the calibration process in lines 210-217 in the manuscript and the relevant figure (S6 Fig), and explained the sensitivity coefficient of the simulations.

14): Line 161: Provide citation for this and Eq. 10.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 14:

Thank you for your reminder. We have added it in lines 175-176 with reference 50 and 51.

15): Line 182: Needs a space. Check all the document for similar issues.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 15:

Thank you for your reminder. We have added it in line 129 and checked and revised similar issues in the manuscript.

16): Line 183: Add degree C.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 16:

We have added it in line 129 and checked and revised similar issues in the manuscript.

17): Lines 182-194: This is not part of your results. It should be presented in the Methods section and the figures also could be presented in the supplementary materials file.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 17:

Thank you for your reminder. We have moved this information to the section Regional monitoring in lines 129-138. The figures are now presented in the Supporting information (S1 Fig).

18): Line 196: Explain the panels in the caption.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 18:

Thank you for your reminder. We have explained the panels in the captions in line 596.

19): Lines 216-217: Provide the numerical results here as well.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 19:

Thank you for your reminder. We have provided the numerical results in lines 225-226.

20): Lines 210-211: Figure 4 only includes 4 panels without further information on why these 4 days are selected in the period. How was the performance of the model in calibration compared to the validation? If these values in fig. 4 are the average daily or observed for a time. Overall this figure is confusing and should be deleted. You need to think of a better way of visualizing this.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 20:

Thank you for your comments. We have explained why these 4 days are selected in lines 218-220. The validation period included the high temperature period in summer and the low temperature period before freezing. The calibrated data were measured by EXO2 (Table 1) during the manual monitoring time, and we explained the data source in lines 218-219. In the model verification, we added the vertical water temperature comparison between August 25 and August 30. In addition, we redrew Figure 4 to clarify the visual presentation (S7 Fig) and re-analyzed the errors in lines 222-224.

21): Lines 222-229: This is a part of the methods for me.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 21:

Thank you for your comments. This part was actually a verification of the ice period. We did not measure data during the winter icing period because of engineering limitations and researcher safety considerations. Therefore, we obtained the ice process in the study area through satellite pictures, and ice was also considered in the model. The time of freezing and melting was consistent, which showed that the process of thermal budget was consistent. We rewrote this part in lines 229-232 and moved Figure 4 to the supporting information (S9 Fig).

22): Lines 233-234: Present this in a quantitative way.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 22:

Thank you for your comments. We rewrote this sentence in lines 236-239 using quantitative results.

23): Lines 279-280: By what percent?

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 23:

Thank you for your comments. We rewrote this information based on the variance analysis results in lines 281-282 and reorganized this paragraph.

24): Line 327: Provide relevant information for Fig. 10 first.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 24:

We carefully checked and revised the order of the pictures to ensure that the order of the pictures and text matches.

25): Line 331: The panels are too small and again, there is not explanation why and how these time windows are selected.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 25:

Thank you so much for your suggestion. We redrew Figure 4 and enlarged the panel according to your comments. We explained why and how these time windows are selected in lines 327-328 and used the recommended paired t-test to analyze this part of the data and reported the P value, and the results were reorganized and discussed in lines 343-351.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers3.docx

Decision Letter 1

NING Sun

26 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-19898R1

Study of the thermal regime of a reservoir on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Deng,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

All three reviewers agreed that the revisions made significant improvements to the quality of the paper. One reviewer had minor comments that the authors should address in their revisions. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 10 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

NING Sun

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed all the review comments, and now the paper is acceptable for publication.

Congratuation for the good work.

Reviewer #2: General comments:

I would like to thank the authors made a tremendous effort in updating this manuscript. It has improved a lot. I would still recommend the authors address the following questions before it goes to publication.

Specific comments:

1. Line 14: please specify what frequency of the observed data is used to calculate RMSE? Hourly, daily, or monthly?

2. Line 90: What do you mean by the “river-run reservoir”? Do you mean “run-of-river reservoir”? Based on the data you showed in Figure 2d, I would argue whether this reservoir is a run-of-the-river reservoir. It is more like a storage reservoir. Commonly, run-of-the-river reservoirs are barely stratified.

3. Line 111: “…reservoir is 12.3 x 108 m3 [at] (under) the 4095 m a.s.l.”

4. Equation 11 is not necessary. The authors can simply state that in text.

5. Section 3.4: I would recommend the authors have a summary paragraph to summarize what statistical experiments they did in this study. The current paragraph is oversimplified, and I am not particularly interested in what software the authors used to do this analysis; Python, R, Excel does not make any difference.

6. Line 223: Add units to standard deviation. Additionally, it is unnecessary to report a relative error in river temperatures. Unlike precipitation, zero precipitation means there is no precipitation, but zero degrees Celsius still has physical meanings.

7. Please rearrange the supplemental figures as they appear in the main text.

8. Line 236: I would recommend using the term “turnover” rather than “inversion.”

9. Line 280: “…fluctuated [between] (from) XX °C [and] (to) XX°C.” The temperature fluctuation is not monotonic.

10. The first paragraph in Section 4.5 belongs to methodology.

11. It would recommend that the authors further discuss how this study's findings can have a broader impact. It would make this study more impactful.

Notation: [add] (delete)

Reviewer #3: The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and basically the manuscript has been improved. It may be published now.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 21;15(12):e0243198. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243198.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


4 Nov 2020

Dear reviewers,

We are grateful to the editor for giving us the opportunity to further improve manuscript PONE-D-20-19898R1, entitled “Study of the thermal regime of a reservoir on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, China”. We are grateful for the constructive comments and suggestions, which were carefully considered in this minor revision of our manuscript.

Our point-by-point responses to your comments are provided below.

1): Line 14: please specify what frequency of the observed data is used to calculate RMSE? Hourly, daily, or monthly?

Response to reviewer comment No. 1:

Thank you for this comment. We specified the frequency of the observed data in lines 13-14.

2): Line 90: What do you mean by the “river-run reservoir”? Do you mean “run-of-river reservoir”? Based on the data you showed in Figure 2d, I would argue whether this reservoir is a run-of-the-river reservoir. It is more like a storage reservoir. Commonly, run-of-the-river reservoirs are barely stratified.

Response to reviewer comment No. 2:

Thank you for your constructive comment. We meant “run-of-river reservoir”, and this was modified in line 91. Most of the inflow of run-of-river reservoirs enters from the main river and forms a plug flow with a mainstream direction. These reservoirs have a larger flow, a smaller volume and a mainstream layer, and the retention time is smaller than that of storage reservoirs and lakes. The Pangduo Reservoir has these characteristics. With the expansion of reservoir construction, these large run-of-river deep reservoirs will also have temperature stratification, such as that in the Xiluodu Reservoir, and the water age of the hypolimnion varies between 100 and 300 days. The specific references are listed below.

References:

Reference 1. Xie, Q., Liu, Z., Fang, X., Chen, Y., Li, C., MacIntyre, S., 2017. Understanding the Temperature Variations and Thermal Structure of a Subtropical Deep River-Run Reservoir before and after Impoundment. Water-Sui. 9(8), 603.

Reference 2. Hayes, N.M., Deemer, B.R., Corman, J.R., Razavi, N.R., Strock, K.E., 2017. Key differences between lakes and reservoirs modify climate signals: A case for a new conceptual model. Limnology & Oceanography Letters 2(2).

Reference 3. Naderi, V., Farsadizadeh, D., Dalir, A.H., Arvanaghi, H., 2014. Effect of Using Vertical Plates on Vertical Intake on Discharge Coefficient. Arabian Journal for Science & Engineering 39(12), 8627-8633.

Reference 4. Akiyama, J., Stefan, H.G., 1987. Gravity Currents in Lakes, Reservoirs and Coastal Regions: Two-Layer Stratified Flow Analysis. St Anthony Falls Laboratory.

3): Line 111: “…reservoir is 12.3 x 108 m3 [at] (under) the 4095 m a.s.l.”

Response to reviewer comment No. 3:

Thank you for your reminder. This was modified in line112 according to your comment.

4): Equation 11 is not necessary. The authors can simply state that in text.

Response to reviewer comment No. 4:

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We deleted Equation 11 and stated the content in the text in lines 199-202.

5): Section 3.4: I would recommend the authors have a summary paragraph to summarize what statistical experiments they did in this study. The current paragraph is oversimplified, and I am not particularly interested in what software the authors used to do this analysis; Python, R, Excel does not make any difference.

Response to reviewer comment No. 5:

Thank you for your constructive comment. We revised the paragraph to summarize the statistical experiments performed in the study in lines 204-209.

6): Line 223: Add units to standard deviation. Additionally, it is unnecessary to report a relative error in river temperatures. Unlike precipitation, zero precipitation means there is no precipitation, but zero degrees Celsius still has physical meanings.

Response to reviewer comment No. 6:

Thank you for your reminder. We added units to the standard deviation in line 234 and performed similar edits throughout the manuscript. We agree with you that reporting the relative error is unnecessary, and this was deleted.

7): Please rearrange the supplemental figures as they appear in the main text.

Response to reviewer’s comment No. 7:

Thank you for your reminder. We rearranged and carefully checked the order of supplementary figures in the manuscript.

8): 8. Line 236: I would recommend using the term “turnover” rather than “inversion”.

Response to reviewer comment No. 8:

We modified this term in line 246, line 248 and line 430.

9): Line 280: “…fluctuated [between] (from) XX °C [and] (to) XX°C.” The temperature fluctuation is not monotonic.

Response to reviewer comment No. 9:

Thank you very much for your reminder. This was modified in line 290 and line 309.

10): The first paragraph in Section 4.5 belongs to methodology.

Response to reviewer comment No. 10:

Thank you for your comment. We moved the first paragraph in section 4.5 to the methodology section, specifically, the last paragraph of section 3.2, lines 174-178.

11): It would recommend that the authors further discuss how this study's findings can have a broader impact. It would make this study more impactful.

Response to reviewer comment No. 11:

Thank you for your constructive comment. We added section 4.6 and related references to discuss the impact and scientific significance of this research and discussed future work related to this study specifically in lines 409-427.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

NING Sun

18 Nov 2020

Study of the thermal regime of a reservoir on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China

PONE-D-20-19898R2

Dear Dr. Deng,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

NING Sun

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

NING Sun

23 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-19898R2

·Study of the thermal regime of a reservoir on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, China

Dear Dr. Deng:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. NING Sun

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig

    Temporal distribution of measured air temperature (A), solar radiation (B), and inflow water temperature (C Rezhenzangbu and D Wululong) in the study area.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Interpretation of the winter satellite film of the Pangduo Reservoir.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Model grid division schematic diagram.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Designed operating conditions of the Pangduo Hydropower station.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Air temperature and inflow water temperature distribution of the low-altitude reservoir during the calculated period.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. Measured vertical water temperature changes from August 25, 2016 to August 31, 2016.

    (TIF)

    S7 Fig

    Simulated temperature profiles at the section upstream to the Pangduo dam using three shades (A), three WSCs (B) and measured profiles on Sep. 15, 2016; Oct. 15, 2016; Nov. 22, 2016 and Dec. 15, 2016.

    (TIF)

    S8 Fig. Comparison of the calculated and measured water temperature in front of the dam (□ measured point).

    (TIF)

    S9 Fig. Measured and calculated water temperature scatter plot distribution.

    (TIF)

    S10 Fig. Variation process of the calculated ice thickness upstream of the dam.

    (TIF)

    S11 Fig. Longitudinal and vertical two-dimensional water temperature and flow field distribution in the Pangduo Reservoir on February 15, 2017.

    (TIF)

    S1 File. Inflow mixing mode videos and gifs between the Pangduo Reservoir and the low-altitude reservoir.

    (ZIP)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review comments.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Yang_et_al_2020.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-19898_reviewer.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers3.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES