This article applies numerical modeling to explore particle transport and impacts on hydrological connectivity in river deltas due to common anthropogenic landscape modifications such as the construction of embankments or the dredging of channels. Findings from this work can help inform the use of engineering structures on delta landscapes with evidence of changes to hydrological connectivity and the need for more in-depth studies in regions of proposed structures. This article is well-written and should be published, as it will be of interest to engineers, coastal scientists, and potentially even policy and decision-makers. 

I have only a few minor edits and suggestions for technical corrections:

• In section 2.2.1,, it would be helpful to add a short statement summarizing what the three "looks" are from the approach of Shaw et al. (2008). 
• The Wax Lake Delta is mentioned several times throughout the manuscript as a natural system comparison for the model. The article could benefit from more discussion with specific similarities/differences to the Wax Lake Delta. This will help support that despite necessary reduced complexity often used in modeling analyses, that the model is valid and can be applied to natural delta systems. The Wax Lake delta is currently gaining land. So another question I have is what the implications of these model results are for deltas that are experiencing widespread coastal erosion or subsidence, instead of gaining land. 
• In lines 269-272, it could be useful to add a sentence or two about what the implications are for deposits and sediment storage on the delta vs. what material is flushed offshore.
• Lines 284-291 seem a bit out-of-place. I think that a few additional sentences on how the model results can inform our understanding of salinity (particularly since saltwater intrusion can be a big issue for deltas) may strengthen the argument for the applicability of the model. 
• If possible, it could be useful to include quantitative estimates of changes in nourishment area and hydrological connectivity within the text.
• Figure 7: Difficult to quickly make out trends in the data. Consider adding a summary of trends to the figure caption. 
• Figure 8: Specify this figure is showing the exposure time in the whole delta system. 
• Line 20: This sentence seems out of place and is not discussed elsewhere in the text. Consider adding another sentence here to summarize how connectivity impacts flora/fauna. 
• Line 38: Awkward wording
• Line 44: How is hydrological connectivity significant and important for deltas? 
• Line 47: "These environmental conditions lead to variations in morphology" is repetitive with the previous sentence
• Line 84: Figure 4 is referenced in the text before Figures 2 or 3
• Lines 228-229: Confusing sentence, consider rewording
• Line 292: Specify if this finding is for every particle type (θ)
• Line 309: Run-on sentence
• Line 340: Missing year on the Wright et al. citation
• Line 341: This needs further explanation or support, since one of the findings in the text is that flow conditions do not seem to significantly influence particle behavior unless the landscape has been dredged (Lines 223-226). 

The manuscript explores material transport in human-modified deltaic landscapes through an exploratory model study. It examines how particles with varying buoyancies move through deltaic terrains generated by computer simulations. The study finds that both dredging and land reclamation reduce the nourished area, while exposure times for dredged or partially reclaimed deltas increase or decrease, respectively. Overall, the article is a valuable addition to the literature and fits well within the scope of Earth Surface Dynamics. It is also easily comprehensible. However, one main weakness is the limited discussion of the hydrodynamic results. I recommend accepting the manuscript with minor revisions. Below are my suggestions for improvement:

- The impacts of dredging and land reclamation on hydrodynamics considerable (e.g. Talke & Jay, 2022), and despite the limited tidal range at the model boundaries, it would be beneficial to include a section in the results discussing the hydrodynamic response to these anthropogenic interferences. Currently, the hydrodynamic results are limited to one figure in the appendix, but dedicating a section to this topic could help explain some of the particle routing results and provide insight into the delta's morphodynamic response to dredging and land reclamation.

- The particle routing results provide valuable insight into the morphodynamic response to anthropogenic pressures, especially if they represent sediment transport pathways. However, the discussion of the future morphodynamic response is limited. It would be helpful to elaborate on the expected response based on the hydrodynamic and particle routing results.

- In Figures 1, 2, and 3, a diverging colorbar is used, and it would be advisable to set the divergence point to a relevant elevation. What is the value of this middle point, and is it a relevant elevation? If not, I recommend setting the value to mean sea level or mean low water.

- In lines 120-121, the authors discuss the morphological closing and erosion operation. Could you explain what these operations entail and why the erosion operation is applied twice? Additionally, it is unclear why this is necessary if no further morphological evolution will be simulated following land reclamation.

- In line 155, the authors mention that the simulation captures two tidal cycles. While this may be sufficient given the limited tidal range, it is common for hydrodynamics to require more than two cycles to converge. It would be helpful to ensure the reader that the hydrodynamics have indeed converged, e.g. by mentioning the difference in tidal amplitude or high water level within the delta for the second and third cycle.

- In lines 284-287, the authors assume that the traces indicate where freshwater would flow in a system influenced by density differences. However, density-driven flows can be complex and also significantly impact freshwater flow. Therefore, it is advisable to refrain from this assumption and simply state that particle visitation by positively buoyant particles might indicate freshwater flow.

- In section 4.3, the transport differences due to material properties are discussed. It would be interesting to provide an indication of what types of particles the behavior of the positively, neutrally, and negatively buoyant particles represent. For instance, negatively buoyant particles might represent bedload transport, neutrally buoyant particles could resemble suspended load transport, and positively buoyant particles might represent plastics.

- Sections 3.2 and 3.3 are named after the figures they discuss. However, it would be preferable to use section headers named after the topic rather than the tool used to present the results. Timeseries and distributions are tools to get to the result and not the results themselves.

References:

Talke, S. A., & Jay, D. A. (2020). Changing Tides: The Role of Natural and Anthropogenic Factors. Annual Review of Marine Science, 12(1), 121–151. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-010419-010727