Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

In this manuscript, the authors collected data by GS and GIS techniques and applied analytical hierarchy processes method to identify groundwater potential zones. The manuscript is well structured, the proposed method is innovative and the main results are reliable. However, the manuscript needs to be modified before accpect. The detailed comments as following:

 

1. Line 51: There's an extra parenthesis.

2.line 44-50: ，need add more relative high quality references , “Groundwater has been mismanaged in many areas around the world due to poor government management, resulting in seawater intrusion or salinity of groundwater, landfill leachate to groundwater, agricultural wastewater flows, high pump discharges for various uses, land degradation, water table decline, high pumping costs, adverse effects on groundwater-dependent ecosystems (Agarwal et al. 2013; Bera, Mukhopadhyay, and Barua 2020; Ikirri et al. 2023; Khan, ElKashouty, and Tian 2022; Seyam et al. 2020; Zghibi et al. 2020). and a variety of other environmental issues, such as water pollution (    ;    ;     ;      )”.

 

Recommend add the following high quality references. And add the following corresponding references in the “References” part:

(1) Removal of nitrate from groundwater by nano-scale zero-valent iron injection pulses in continuous-flow packed soil columns. Science of The Total Environment, 810, p.152300.

 (2) Watershed scale spatiotemporal nitrogen transport and source tracing using

dual isotopes among surface water, sediments and groundwater in the Yiluo

River Watershed, Middle of China. Science of the Total Environment 833 (2022) 155180

 (3) Spatiotemporal changes of nitrate retention at the interface between surface water and groundwater: Insight from watershed scale in an elevated nitrate region.  Hydrological Processes, 37(3), e14856.

(4) Multi-methods to investigate spatiotemporal variations of nitrogen-nitrate and its risks to human health in China's largest fresh water lake (Poyang Lake), Science of the Total Environment 863 (2023) 160975.

 

3. Line 167: Figure 2 should be polished. (1) Arrowhead of the arrow from “Data” and “DEM” is unnecessary. (2) Node in “Land Sat 8” is covered, and the left node of “Drainage Density” is needless. (3) Are “Geology map” and “Rainfall map” different with other factors? The arrows of them are supposed to link to the central arrows.

4. Line 186: Figure 3-9 also need to be adjusted. (1) The size of Legend and its subtitle should be different to distinguish them (Fig. 3,6,8,9), and Mind the space between titles and the contents (Fig. 4,7). (2) “Study Area” is not required in these figures, it is default as a single area be present. (3) The location of north arrow and scale bar in figures should be adjust, they are too close to the frame.

5. Line 350: “1” in the second line is different with others in Table 5.

6. Line 378,388: Please mind the tense in these sentences and check it out over the manuscript.

7. Line 409-416: A brief description about GPZ should be referred in Conclusion section.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript with sustainability-2391708 aims at evaluating the ground water potential sites using AHP in GIS environment. The article mostly fits the scope of Sustainability Journal, however, following are a few recommendations that should be incorporated before the final publishing.
1.       English and sentence structure should be improved considerately.
2.       Carefully check for grammatical/typo errors for consistency and quality of the article. The writing needs improvement.
3.       GPZ, GW, SWAT etc., mentioned in introduction section are not explained and written in full form before their use. For instance, please see lines 66, 103 and 197.
4.       In general, importance of the study area is discussed but novelty of the manuscript lacks and should be discussed clearly.
5.       Resolution and quality of all the images should be improved.
6.       There are many methods and tools available to perform the spatial interpolation. Justify the reason of selecting/ using IDW approach for precipitation variable. Why did not the authors utilize kriging or trend surface estimation? Please explain with logic.
7.       Maps should contain the same font for each of its element, however, the font used in legends and title is different than that utilized to represent the scale bars. Therefore, similar font for all the elements is recommended.
8.       Number 2 should be placed in the superscript for square kilometer units mentioned on drainage density map (Please see Figure 8).
9.       For better readability it is preferrable that data layers of all the variables with corresponding source/resolution/scale and other important details should be added with a table.
10.   Consider adding the web links to the data used (in the reference list), for instance, SRTM, LULC, Soil, and geology.
11.   Discuss while analyzing the variables (input datasets) in AHP, authors performed multicollinearity check? If yes, please add relevant results in manuscript. If not, discuss the logic.
12.   There is formatting issue with Table 5, see line 349.
13.   Based on your findings/conclusions, suggest a few areas for future research.
14.   Some other aspects including merits, demerits and limitation of the models utilized in current study should be covered.
15.   Avoid references older than 5 years (>2018)
16.   There are several formatting issues in reference list and needs correction according to the journal format.

 

 

1.       English and sentence structure should be improved considerately.

2.       Carefully check for grammatical/typo errors for consistency and quality of the article. The writing needs improvement.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have reviewed the article entitled “Delineation of Groundwater Potential Zone Map For Kızılırmak Delta by Using Remote Sensing-Based Geospatial and Analytical Hierarchy Processes”

 

After a careful analysis and study of this paper and after applying the methodology explained by the authors (based on the available geological and tectonic mapping of the area, as well as open databases, some used by the authors and others that the authors seem to be unaware of) I do not reach the same results as they do.

 

This is due on the one hand to some omissions when describing the study area or the work guidelines. This should be improved in the article before publication. 

 

The first failure is not to provide a good geographic framework for locating the work area. The authors must have known the study area, and therefore in Figure 1 of the geographic location they omit any geographic reference to the study area. The logical thing to do would have been to use a classic geographic map with the location of towns and classic geographic elements that will allow the reader to quickly locate the area visually. 

 

Also, the color scale used is not correct; in geography, the color scale that should be used in a map of the type shown by the authors is standardized, review the classic texts where these cartographic aspects are explained. If you do not know where to find a reference text on cartographic aspects, through the editor I would be happy to give you some references on these aspects.

 

Information is missing in the precipitation section; it is not possible to build a map of figure 3 starting from only one station, as seems to be extracted from reading the article where they indicate that they have used data from the population of Samsun “The precipitation data were obtained from the Turkish State Meteorological Service (MGI) for Samsun City from 1990 to 2021“. For any geospatial representation, at least three points are necessary, it is a basic rule of geometry that the authors seem to be unaware of. The article should indicate the number of stations used, their location and represent them in the cartography shown in figure 3.

 

In the soil section, I am surprised that suddenly the SWAT model and SWAT soil types are mentioned: “The primary type of soil for the study was obtained as loamy soil from the soil map of the world (FAO) with a specific number of 3027 and the SWAT database of the soil, which has low infiltration capacity, as shown in Figure 4.” Authors should specify, using the corresponding citations, which SWAT database (there are several, and each of them has a specific structure for soil data; SWAT databases can also be made on demand) In addition , the SWAT database is very generic in terms of the edaphic horizons it takes into account. For a research of this type, it is not correct to use this database due to its low resolution, the presence of terraces and the high seismicity of the study area, making it necessary to use a soil database and more detailed cartography.

 

It is impossible for the direct area of the riverbed to have the type of soil described by the authors. In the bibliography consulted for the review of this work, edaphic profiles have been found that show that the information used by the authors is of low quality. see Figure.

Terraces of Kızılırmak catchment in study area. 

 

Kızılırmak Fluvial Terraces

 

The geology section must be rewritten in its entirety, the authors demonstrate their ignorance by confusing geology with soils. A geological cartography shows geological formations (consolidated or not; igneous, metamorphic or sedimentary) of different ages and different petrophysical characteristics. In the first line they already show that they do not know what they should deal with in this section: “The geological features of the soil affect the porosity, and the porosity affects the groundwater movement;” We talk about soils or geology, if we talk about geology why refer to soil, which may or may not exist in an area, an edaphic profile (soil) can be 2 cm or 15 meters.

 

Later, a rock can be porous, but if it lacks permeability it does not allow the movement of groundwater. Let's not confuse porosity with permeability, the pores must be connected for water to flow. In addition, in impermeable, metamorphic and igneous rocks, the movement of groundwater is through fractures and microfractures in the rock. This is the reason that exploitable groundwater exists in crystalline rocks all over the world, a granite or slate hardly has primary porosity and permeability, but secondary one generated by microfractures and macrofractures that allow it to store and transmit water.

 

Another aspect is fundamental in this section, use an adequate geological cartography. If you have geological maps of the country at a detail scale of 1:25,000 or 1:50,000, why use the USGS low-resolution cartography. Is not correct.

 

Geological map of study area.

The faults and lineaments in the study area are mostly parallel to the North Anatolian Fault (NAF), in the geotectonic scheme of the image it is clearly appreciated that from these tectonic lineaments (faults and folds) it is impossible to obtain the Lineament Density (LD) result shown in figure 7.

This figure has been obtained mainly from the river drainage network and not from geological structures, as indicated in the original references that describe the method. The authors speak of “for the present study, the LD map was created from the DEM of the area in the Arcmap 10.8.2 environment by plotting the site's hillside map in different resolutions.” When in the introduction They say that the calculation takes into account “Linear features such as folds, fractures, and joints form the lineaments of a field”

As already happened in the geology section, geological aspects are confused with other aspects, which causes the method to be applied incorrectly, and therefore the data obtained is not correct.

Starting from the erroneous results of this section, which will be dragged in the final zonation of the study area, it cannot be published in its current form without correcting these aspects.

In addition, the citations are not correct on many occasions, punctuation rules must be respected, and especially use the proper format of the journal.

 

 

The references used for this review are not provided, since it is the authors' job to carry out an adequate bibliographic search for the preparation of the article. In the event that they are unable to find them, they will be provided through the editor.

 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors:

The modifications incorporated  have improved the work presented. I must thank them for their efforts in making the modifications.