The Use of Digital Terrain Models to Estimate the Pace of Filling the Pit of a Central European Granite Quarry with Water
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Editorial issues
Font size must be unified. Correct spacing between words (line 38: "thousand km2in"). In Fig. 1 caption provide information about sources for the maps used. Please clarify (on the map or in the figure caption) what is shown on the lower left map (Lower Silesian Voivodeship?). This map should be simplified or made more clear (it is completely illegible and one can only guess the meaning of hardly visible cartographic symbols). The upper left maps obviously shows Europe, but according to cartographic rules, the continent should be signed. Fig. 2: a) Please mark the cross-sections A-B and C-D and put the letters in proper places on the ortophoto and on proper sides of the cross-sections. b) Change the linear scale for the orthophoto into full units (e.g. 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 km). c) Rearrange the colour scale for DTM so that highest elevation unit in uppermost and remove the navy blue (water should be presented separately). Correct reference list, e.g. "Gandah F," should be "Gandah F.," and you should unify the method of providing doi; now I can see at least 4 methods (DOI:, DOI, doi:, https:/doi.org/)
Substantive and linguistic remarks
Lines 42-43: make the distinctions of land use more clear (e.g. what do you mean by "nature" or "water"?) line 44: world (lower case) line 49: delete "(formed)" line 51; delete "were" lines 52-56: please add particular reference next to a particular purpose (do not relegate all references to the end of this sentence). This remark is general also pertains to other sentences (e.g. line 58, 65). Do you really need eighteen references to support a simple statement? Do not use "pit (mine) lakes" all the time (make-up your minds and decide on a two-word term). lines 72-73: unclear lines 77-83: please correct language; this sentence is too long lines 99-104: this sentence is too long In Introduction the link to Jawecki et al. 2018 should be made, explaining what new elements this article brings to the already studied (and published) issue of water storage in the Strzelin mining pit. lines: 109-118: it is unclear for me (“SGQ quarry operates as part of the Strzelin II mining region” - is Strzelin II a larger unit than SGQ? Is quarrying still in progress at Strzelin 1? ) line 123: the reference to support the age of the rock is improper (please refer to more geological sources) line 134: does the water table depend only on rainfall and evaporation? Line 175: you disregard subsurface runoff but in line 261 you acknowledge it (please justify better the simplicity of the formula) Lines 253-256: do not repeat information already provided in chapter 2 Lines 260-268: some information was already provided before or need to be moved to chapter 2. Lines 323-324: provide all duration times in years (do not change form years to days) Lines 338-343: do not repeat information Line 360: provide examples (names) Line 418: the example of the hotel in Shanghai requires a bit of explanation in the text, because it is not about filling-up the quarry with water In Summary and conclusions the same pieces of information are uselessly repeated.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all we would like to thank the reviewers for their time and effort put in the review of the article. In the following paragraphs we describe how we dealt with the feedback provided.
In the manuscript the comments of the reviewer 1 were introduced in green font. With editing view was introduced english proofreading made by MDPI english editing system.
Comment's of the Reviewer 1:
Font size must be unified. Correct spacing between words (line 38: "thousand km2in").
It has been corrected as was suggested by the reviewer.
In Fig. 1 caption provide information about sources for the maps used. Please clarify (on the map or in the figure caption) what is shown on the lower left map (Lower Silesian Voivodeship?). This map should be simplified or made more clear (it is completely illegible and one can only guess the meaning of hardly visible cartographic symbols). The upper left maps obviously shows Europe, but according to cartographic rules, the continent should be signed.
The Figure 1. was corrected as was suggested by the reviewer. Also we corrected legend to show the Mining region Strzelin II and Mining area Strzelin II, what was suggested in to lines: 109-118 to explain difference between about this to area and SGQ.
Fig. 2: a) Please mark the cross-sections A-B and C-D and put the letters in proper places on the ortophoto and on proper sides of the cross-sections. b) Change the linear scale for the orthophoto into full units (e.g. 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 km). c) Rearrange the colour scale for DTM so that highest elevation unit in uppermost and remove the navy blue (water should be presented separately).
The Figure 2. was corrected as was suggested by the reviewer
Correct reference list, e.g. "Gandah F," should be "Gandah F.," and you should unify the method of providing doi; now I can see at least 4 methods (DOI:, DOI, doi:, https:/doi.org/)
The reference list was corrected as was suggested by the reviewer.
Lines 42-43: make the distinctions of land use more clear (e.g. what do you mean by "nature" or "water"?)
The text was corrected with suggestion of reviewer. We ad in text some examples of land use to make the distinctions more clear between different types of land reclamation.
line 44: world (lower case)
It has been corrected as was suggested by the reviewer.
line 49: delete "(formed)"
It has been corrected as was suggested by the reviewer.
line 51; delete "were"
It has been corrected as was suggested by the reviewer.
lines 52-56: please add particular reference next to a particular purpose (do not relegate all references to the end of this sentence). This remark is general also pertains to other sentences (e.g. line 58, 65).
It has been corrected as was suggested by the reviewer.
Do you really need eighteen references to support a simple statement?
Some references was deleted
Do not use "pit (mine) lakes" all the time (make-up your minds and decide on a two-word term).
It has been corrected as was suggested by the reviewer. We use „pit lakes”
lines 72-73: unclear
We divided the paragraph into three sentences, that should made easier to understand it :
The monitoring of mining and post-mining areas may be carried out with use of LiDAR and GIS technology [23, 72, 73]. The geomorphological parameters of the pit (in particular the cubic capacity of excavation), indicate the potential amount of water required to fill the excavation pit. Which will become the bowl of the new pit (mine) lake or quarry lake.
lines 77-83: please correct language; this sentence is too long
We divided the paragraph into a few sentences, that should made easier to understand it :
If LiDAR data are available or may be obtained, the geomorphological parameters may be determined based on data from Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS), Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS), Mobile Laser Scanning (MLS) techniques or other photogrammetric measurements, e.g. with use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) [23, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81], ].These methods which may can also be used to determine the parameters of the own catchment (direct catchment of the pit) that are necessary for hydrological calculations.
lines 99-104: this sentence is too long
Among the methods used in hydrological modelling and calculations, literature often lists methods based on parametric, statistical and determinist (physical) models. Including HEC, ANSWERS, SWRRBWQ, BASINS, SWAT, MIKE SHE, Xin’anjiang, WASH123D, BAYMOD, CASC2D, which are commonly used worldwide [93, 94, 95, 96]. The description of selected methods used in Poland was provided, among others, in the work by Banasik et al. [97].
In Introduction the link to Jawecki et al. 2018 should be made, explaining what new elements this article brings to the already studied (and published) issue of water storage in the Strzelin mining pit.
We divided the paragraph into Introduction chapter:
This work is dedicated to the use of DTM to calculate the rate of retention increase in the quarry and to calculate the time necessary to fill the quarry to the assumed elevation. It is a continuation of the topic taken in the work of Jawecki and others [23], in which the use of LiDAR ALS data to estimate the retention volume of the quarry and the impact of the retention capacity of quarry lake on the volume of reservoirs retention in the balance catchments was presented.
lines: 109-118: it is unclear for me (“SGQ quarry operates as part of the Strzelin II mining region” - is Strzelin II a larger unit than SGQ? Is quarrying still in progress at Strzelin 1? )
To clarify this, we have corrected the legend in Fig. 1. We added in text information , that quarrying is still in progress only in small part of Strzelin 1 (the pillar between Strzelin 1 i Strzelin 2 quarry)
line 123: the reference to support the age of the rock is improper (please refer to more geological sources)
We added in text and references [101-109] new references about age of rock.
line 134: does the water table depend only on rainfall and evaporation?
We added in text that its depends also of surface runoff from the direct catchment.
Line 175: you disregard subsurface runoff but in line 261 you acknowledge it (please justify better the simplicity of the formula)
It has been corrected. We delete subsurface runoff
Lines 253-256: do not repeat information already provided in chapter 2
It has been corrected as was suggested by the reviewer.
Lines 260-268: some information was already provided before or need to be moved to chapter 2.
It has been corrected as was suggested by the reviewer.
Lines 323-324: provide all duration times in years (do not change form years to days)
It has been corrected as was suggested by the reviewer. But it was resulted into a change of fig. 5
Lines 338-343: do not repeat information
It has been corrected as was suggested by the reviewer.
Line 360: provide examples (names)
We add names of Zakrzówek, Tarnów Opolski, Świerki quarries.
Line 418: the example of the hotel in Shanghai requires a bit of explanation in the text, because it is not about filling-up the quarry with water
It was added a sentence, that hotel is „located inside old quarry, with water reservoir, living walls on quarry walls, green roofs in hotel, and park around these old quarry and hotel”.
In Summary and conclusions the same pieces of information are uselessly repeated.
We try to correct text as was suggested by the reviewer. Some part of conclusion was deleted.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
While your article is quite interesting, it has a number of errors that make it impossible to judge its true quality. I recommend that you pay more attention to the final review of the text. Here you have a number of errors, such as poor choice of font size in a number of paragraphs, different equation formats, and especially the total absence of references to resources in the second part of the article - poor linking with references. These errors make it impossible to assess the true value of the article.
I think besides many mistakes, your contribution does not bring many new ideas. Described methods are quite old and usage of digital data coming from different sources for volume of terrain features determination is general known. Also calculation of filling of mines by water is not new.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all we would like to thank the reviewers for their time and effort put in the review of the article. In the following paragraphs we describe how we dealt with the feedback provided.
In the manuscript the comments of the reviewer 2 were introduced in purple font. With editing view was introduced english proofreading made by MDPI english editing system
Comments of the Reviewer 2:
Thank you for critical comments to our article. Probably the errors was caused during conversion manuscript from "doc" file to "pdf" file. It has been corrected. Also the other edit mistakes was corrected. We have also added a section with information why, in our opinion, this subject is important (line109-123).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I can see that significant improvements have been made. I recommend acceptance in its present form.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
First of all we would like to thank you for your time and effort put in the review of the article. We thank you to recommend to publishing our article.
The English language, style and spelling were checked and corrected by MDPI English Editing Services, but we will check it again.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
The quality of your article is much more better than the previous version. Thank you for corrections. The explanation of main idea is clear, it corresponds to theory and is supported by experience. Only some formal errors occur in the text:
bad cross references in some lines - 590, 602,605, bad indexing of variables - S1, S2 (tabel 2, line 601, 602, 610, 613, 615,..). Variables should be in italic font.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
First of all we would like to thank you again for your time and effort put in the review of the article.
All cross references errors has been corrected. We also corrected bad indexing of variables, and italic font of variables.
