MODFLOW and HYDRUS Modeling of Groundwater Supply Prospect Assessment for Distant Pastures in the Aksu River Middle Reaches
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic is interesting in terms of novelty and objectives. The manuscript has managed to present the research methodology and findings in a clear way, however the following points need to be covered: 1- The language needs to be checked again and preferably by anative speakers. Minor spellings and typos are spotted. 2- The study should discuss the modelling limitations and mainly the boundary conditions and the used parameters. This also can be applied to the conclusion, where the study limitations and further investigation should be discussed. 3- Additional recent references (published in the last 2 or 3 years) should be included in the study, where most of the references are quite old.Author Response
Response to reviewer 1
- The language needs to be checked again and preferably by a native speaker. Minor spelling and typos are spotted.
The paper underwent an additional professional round of English editing.
- The study should discuss the modelling limitations and mainly the boundary conditions and the used parameters. This also can be applied to the conclusion, where the study limitations and further investigation should be discussed.
A paragraph about the modeling limitation was added to the methods section (page 19) and to the conclusions (page 32).
- Additional recent references (published in the last 2 or 3 years) should be included in the study, where most of the references are quite old.
Additional relevant and recently published references are included in the article:
introduction (pages 1,2 and 3).
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with an interesting topic.
Nevertheless, it needs definitely to be rewritten before being reconsidered for publication.
Some features are listed below, to be addressed.
- The authors rightly refer to Richards’ equation: nevertheless, Richards’ equation could be endowed with different types of hydraulic functions (both water retention curve and hydraulic conductivity function). A well established pair of these function is the Van Genutchen – Mualem model: nevertheless, authors should be aware that exists also different hydraulic functions exist: for instance, Gardner’ hydraulic functions which are very interesting because they allow Kirkhhoff transformations ( see Berardi et al TiPM 2022 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-021-01730-y, Suk and Park, 2019 JoH https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124213 ), Haverkamp (Haverkamp et al SSSAJ 1977, https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1977.03615995004100020024x, Varado et al JoH 2006, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.052)
- - “winenergy-baseded” please correct English
- - In my opinion the choice of considering a 1D unsaturated flow model coupled with a 2D groundwater flow model is not wise, and at least should be better justified, “he mathematical groundwater flow model is described by a partial differential equation of two-dimensional groundwater flow through porous material”. The only justification I see is that a 2D unsaturated flow model would be very computationally expensive.
- - According to my knowledge, clogging phenomenon is related to the change in time of hydraulic properties (for instance, the conductivity, or the porosity), due to a change in porous material nature. The change of conductivity with pressure is described by Mualem law: this point needs to be clarified.
Author Response
Response to reviewer 2
- The authors rightly refer to Richards’ equation: nevertheless, Richards’ equation could be endowed with different types of hydraulic functions (both water retention curve and hydraulic conductivity function). A well-established pair of these functions is the Van Genutchen – Mualem model: nevertheless, authors should be aware that exists also different hydraulic functions exist: for instance, Gardner’ hydraulic functions which are very interesting because they allow Kirkhhoff transformations ( see Berardi et al TiPM 2022 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-021-01730-y, Suk and Park, 2019 JoH https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124213 ), Haverkamp (Haverkamp et al SSSAJ 1977, https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1977.03615995004100020024x, Varado et al JoH 2006, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.052)
Appropriate additions and an explanation have been added to the introduction (pages 2 and 3).
- “winenergy-baseded” please correct English
Corrected on page 3.
- In my opinion the choice of considering a 1D unsaturated flow model coupled with a 2D groundwater flow model is not wise, and at least should be better justified, “the mathematical groundwater flow model is described by a partial differential equation of two-dimensional groundwater flow through porous material”. The only justification I see is that a 2D unsaturated flow model would be very computationally expensive.
The use of a 1D model is aimed to make the modeling procedure less heavy on time and computation resources and more applicable to places with limited knowledge of flow velocities.
As mentioned by the reviewer, it was not explained and now it is, starting from the methods section (page 10) and also in the conclusions.
- According to my knowledge, clogging phenomenon is related to the change in time of hydraulic properties (for instance, the conductivity, or the porosity), due to a change in porous material nature. The change of conductivity with pressure is described by Mualem law: this point needs to be clarified.
A relevant explanation was added to the text (page 11).
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors
I understand that you conducted MODLOW modelling of groundwater supply for distant pastures. I find the topic is interesting. However, this paper needs some revisions before publication. The following comments are for you reference.
1. I would use the international system of units.
2. I would plot a figure to show the typical geological formation of the investigated area.
3. Did you measure the hydraulic conductivity of the soil based on in-situ test or filed investigation?
4. You mentioned a very large area and seek the groundwater flow through it. I want to know whether you consider the engineering construction in this area because the dewatering or recharge construction would greatly affect the groundwater balance as indicated in plenty of literatures, incurring groundwater drawdown within wide-range area [1-6]. This would influence your result and I would discuss that in the paper.
Best wishes
1. Characteristics of ground settlement due to combined actions of groundwater drawdown and enclosure wall movement[J]. Acta Geotechnica, 2022, 17: 4095–4112
2. Automatic control of groundwater balance to combat dewatering during construction of a metro system[J]. Automation in Construction, 2021, 123: 103536.
3. Dewatering-induced building settlement around a deep excavation in soft deposit in tianjin, china[J]. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2019, 145(5): 05019003.
4. Responses of groundwater and soil to dewatering considering the barrier effect of adjacent metro station on multi-aquifers[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2022, 612: 128117.
Author Response
Response to reviewer 3
- Abstract: In line number 23 of page 1 “m3” should be in superscript “m3”.
Corrected.
- Introduction: The introduction is professionally written.
The introduction was thoroughly revised and underwent additional professional English editing, as did the entire paper.
- Literature Review: Authors should work on this section, and it is recommended to cite a few more recent works to enrich your study, if possible, otherwise it is all right
Whenever found, relevant new studies were cited.
.
- Methodology:
- The “overview map” of fig 1 should be enlarged.
The “overview map” of fig 1 on page 4 is enlarged.
- Figure 4 has become much more ordinary. Authors may try to make it more colorful.
Colors were added to figure 4 on page 9.
- Authors may add a flow diagram for the Research procedure instead of much writing.
Figure 4 represents the modeling procedure as a box flow diagram.
- In Figures 6, 7, and 8 what kind of reference unit authors have used is not clear. It may be in meters or something else, but authors are advised to make it DMS.
In Figures 6,7,8,15,16 and 20 the reference unit - (m) was added.
- Results: In Figure 20 of the manuscript, the authors have marked the legend on the study area map, they are advised to move it to the blank position.
Figure 20 was corrected; the legend was moved to the blank position.
- Discussions: Authors have presented it very well.
- Conclusions: Authors have presented it very well.
- References / Bibliography: All fine
- Figures: It has already been mentioned in the methodology and result section.
- Tables: In Table 1, “m3” should be in superscript “m3”.
Corrected.
Reviewer 4 Report
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1984127
Title: MODFLOW and HYDRUS modeling of groundwater supply prospect assessment for distant pastures in the Aksu River middle reaches
Comments: The purpose of this study is to develop an integrated solution to water supply design using a numerical computer modelling approach with groundwater regional recharge rate calculation in the Aksu River's middle reaches. Facts and processes back up its great potential. Certain issues need to be addressed.
1. Originality: Authors have used novel thought in their study, which is suitable for this journal.
2. Scientific Quality: The work with the title " MODFLOW and HYDRUS modeling of groundwater supply prospect assessment for distant pastures in the Aksu River middle reaches" is very well structured, and scientific and it is written in a way that is easy to understand.
3. Relevance to the Field(s) of this Journal: The article is relevant to this journal as the aim and scopes have been matched.
4. General Comment: I appreciate the hard work put in by the writers. This is an original work that does a good job of discussing the data that was acquired. But some revisions are essential before the final draft.
5. Abstract: In line number 23 of page 1 “m3” should be in superscript “m3”.
6. Introduction: The introduction is professionally written.
7. Literature Review: Authors should work on this section, and it is recommended to cite a few more recent works to enrich your study, if possible, otherwise it is all right.
8. Methodology:
a. The “overview map” of fig 1 should be enlarged.
b. Figure 4 has become much more ordinary. Authors may try to make it more colorful.
c. Authors may add a flow diagram for the Research procedure instead of much writing.
d. In Figures 6, 7, and 8 what kind of reference unit authors have used is not clear. It may be in meters or something else, but authors are advised to make it DMS.
9. Results: In Figure 20 of the manuscript, the authors have marked the legend on the study area map, they are advised to move it to the blank position.
10. Discussions: Authors have presented it very well.
11. Conclusions: Authors have presented it very well.
12. References / Bibliography: All fine
13. Figures: It has already been mentioned in the methodology and result section.
14. Tables: In Table 1, “m3” should be in superscript “m3”.
Reviewer’s Decision Comment: This research paper was written scientifically. This may be beneficial once conditions have improved, but I strongly advise performing a few quick checks beforehand. Some revisions are essential before the final acceptance.
Best wishes
Author Response
Response to reviewer 4
- Abstract: In line number 23 of page 1 “m3” should be in superscript “m3”.
Corrected.
- Introduction: The introduction is professionally written.
The introduction was thoroughly revised and underwent additional professional English editing, as did the entire paper.
- Literature Review: Authors should work on this section, and it is recommended to cite a few more recent works to enrich your study, if possible, otherwise it is all right
Whenever found, relevant new studies were cited.
.
- Methodology:
- The “overview map” of fig 1 should be enlarged.
The “overview map” of fig 1 on page 4 is enlarged.
- Figure 4 has become much more ordinary. Authors may try to make it more colorful.
Colors were added to figure 4 on page 9.
- Authors may add a flow diagram for the Research procedure instead of much writing.
Figure 4 represents the modeling procedure as a box flow diagram.
- In Figures 6, 7, and 8 what kind of reference unit authors have used is not clear. It may be in meters or something else, but authors are advised to make it DMS.
In Figures 6,7,8,15,16 and 20 the reference unit - (m) was added.
- Results: In Figure 20 of the manuscript, the authors have marked the legend on the study area map, they are advised to move it to the blank position.
Figure 20 was corrected; the legend was moved to the blank position.
- Discussions: Authors have presented it very well.
- Conclusions: Authors have presented it very well.
- References / Bibliography: All fine
- Figures: It has already been mentioned in the methodology and result section.
- Tables: In Table 1, “m3” should be in superscript “m3”.
Corrected.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The lines from 139 to 149 are confused. Van-Genuchten Mualem model is not a method for solving the Richards equation, but just an empiric hydraulic function which can be used in the Richards equation. I suggest to rephrase as follows:
"Understanding water and solute movement processes in unsaturated soil layers require a mathematical description and numerical model development [22–25]. Water and solute movement models in an unsaturated soil layer are based on Richards' equation for one-dimensional water movement under saturation variability [24,26], and root water up- take is calculated is the water retention curve can be described by the van Genuchten Equation [27]. In such models, the saturated soil hydraulic conductivity coefficient is a factor of varies with the soil’s hydraulic conductivity function.
The most popular numerical hydraulic function with whom methods for solving the nonlinear Richards equation is endowed is are the the van Genuchten-Mualem (no hysteresis) single porosity hydraulic model. Another well-known hydraulic function numerical method used to solve the nonlinearin the Richards equation is Gardner’s hydraulic functions using the Kirchhoff integral transformation approach [28,29]; nevertheless, since applying a combined MODFLOW and HYDRUS modeling the van Genuchten-Mualem model is rather conventional [30], it was applied in this study."
Author Response
Response to reviewer 2 (round 2)
- The lines from 139 to 149 are confused. Van-Genuchten Mualem model is not a method for solving the Richards equation, but just an empiric hydraulic function which can be used in the Richards equation. I suggest to rephrase as follows:…
- Recommended changes in the text, lines from 139 to 149, were made.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors
I raised some issues in the last review, but what you responded is not the questions I raised. I list my comment again as follow. Please check!
Thank you!
Best wishes
Comment from my last review:
I understand that you conducted MODLOW modelling of groundwater supply for distant pastures. I find the topic is interesting. However, this paper needs some revisions before publication. The following comments are for you reference.
1. I would use the international system of units.
2. I would plot a figure to show the typical geological formation of the investigated area.
3. Did you measure the hydraulic conductivity of the soil based on in-situ test or filed investigation?
4. You mentioned a very large area and seek the groundwater flow through it. I want to know whether you consider the engineering construction in this area because the dewatering or recharge construction would greatly affect the groundwater balance as indicated in plenty of literatures, incurring groundwater drawdown within wide-range area [1-4]. This would influence your result and I would discuss that in the paper.
1. Characteristics of ground settlement due to combined actions of groundwater drawdown and enclosure wall movement[J]. Acta Geotechnica, 2022, 17: 4095–4112
2. Automatic control of groundwater balance to combat dewatering during construction of a metro system[J]. Automation in Construction, 2021, 123: 103536.
3. Dewatering-induced building settlement around a deep excavation in soft deposit in tianjin, china[J]. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2019, 145(5): 05019003.
4. Responses of groundwater and soil to dewatering considering the barrier effect of adjacent metro station on multi-aquifers[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2022, 612: 128117.
Author Response
Response to reviewer 3 (round 2)
- I would use the international system of units.
- Units’ symbols were changed according to IS of units. Some units are typical units used in hydrogeological practices.
- I would plot a figure to show the typical geological formation of the investigated area.
- Generalized stratigraphic column of the upper unconfined aquifer section of the study area (figure 2) was added.
- Did you measure the hydraulic conductivity of the soil based on an in-situ test or filed investigation?
- The hydraulic conductivity of the soil measurements for HYDRUS modeling-based in-situ test. The text was corrected (page 14, line 390) and the required reference was added (line 391). For the MODFLOW model, the hydraulic conductivity values were based on the results of in-situ percolated tests and compared calculations using the empirical equation of Hazen (reference added - line 328) and also on the data that were obtained from official Kazakh hydrogeological survey reports carried out the field investigation in the area.
- You mentioned a very large area and seek the groundwater flow through it. I want to know whether you consider the engineering construction in this area because the dewatering or recharge construction would greatly affect the groundwater balance as indicated in plenty of literatures, incurring groundwater drawdown within wide-range area [1-4]. This would influence your result and I would discuss that in the paper.
- Suitable discussion with required references added to the text (page 23, lines 577-582).
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
In some references, some authors's names are missing. Please revise those.
Suggest to accept after addressing the above issue!
Author Response
Response to reviewer 3 (round 3)
In some references, some author’s names are missing. Please revise those
The references were revised.
