Integrated SWAT-MODFLOW Modeling-Based Groundwater Adaptation Policy Guidelines for Lahore, Pakistan under Projected Climate Change, and Human Development Scenarios
, Sikandar Ali 4, Muhammad Shoaib Sharif 4, Muhammad Waqas Sarwar 5, Naeem Saddique 4, Abid Sarwar 4, Mohib Ullah Ali 6 and Arfan Arshad 7,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review.
The manuscript has no line numbers, making it difficult to review.
The manuscript is very interesting and well written. I enjoyed reading it although it is a bit long. The most important contribution is the results and recommendations presented in section 4. For this reason they should be presented in table format and as a supplement to table 3.
Regarding Table 3, it is important that the authors add an approximate time in the "time-based effectiveness" column. It is subjective to put "slow" and "fast", including even an approximate time lag would be very useful for decision makers.
Regarding the calibration and use of the SWAT model, Tables 4 and 5 should be complemented with Table S1 presented in the supplementary material. This table S1 is very important for the scientific validation of the manuscript.
Some minor comments:
The title is very long, it should be written in a more condensed style.
The information related to the study area presented in the introduction including figure 1 should be incorporated in section 2.1.
It is necessary to write properly the exponents in the units of kilometers.
Table 1 is very good and provides very important information.
It is recommended that Figure 4 be presented in the same form as Figure 7.
We know that the definition of urban and peri-urban watersheds is not easy. However, at least a definition or some basic characteristic to consider peri-urban watersheds is requested. This would help to dimension some places where the proposed methodology could be replicated.
The authors report that the indicators used in the study are grouped into physical and climatic. Is there any possibility to reflect this classification when displaying the results?
Author Response
General response: We thank you reviewer for providing valuable suggestions and recommendations. We have made necessary changes in the revised manuscript following the reviewers suggestions and recommendations. Changes are highlighted in the track change form.
Point 1: The manuscript has no line numbers, making it difficult to review.
Response 1: Thank you very much. We have incorporated the line numbers in the revised manuscript.
Point 2: The manuscript is very interesting and well written. I enjoyed reading it although it is a bit long. The most important contribution is the results and recommendations presented in section 4. For this reason, they should be presented in table format and as a supplement to table 3.
Response 2: Thank you so much for encouraging feedback. As per your suggestion, we now have presnted section 4 in table format in supplementary material as Table S3.
Point 3: Regarding Table 3, it is important that the authors add an approximate time in the "time-based effectiveness" column. It is subjective to put "slow" and "fast", including even an approximate time lag would be very useful for decision makers.
Response 3: As per your suggestion, Table 3 is updated in the Revised Manuscript (P22).
Point 4: Regarding the calibration and use of the SWAT model, Tables 4 and 5 should be complemented with Table S1 presented in the supplementary material. This table S1 is very important for the scientific validation of the manuscript.
Response 4: The relevant section of results and discussion is revised, complementing Supplementary Table S1 (P13/L477-488).
Point 5: The title is very long, it should be written in a more condensed style.
Response 5: Thank you. As per your suggestion, we have amended it in the revised manuscript (P13/L477-488).
Point 6: The information related to the study area presented in the introduction including figure 1 should be incorporated in section 2.1.
Response 6: Figure 1 is updated and incorporated in Section 2.1 in the Revised Manuscript (P4/L146-189).
Point 7: It is necessary to write properly the exponents in the units of kilometers.
Response 7: We have incorporated the suggested correction in the revised manuscript (P1,P3, P10, P11/L31,L103,117, 408, 410, 432).
Point 8: Table 1 is very good and provides very important information.
Response 8: Thank you so much for encouraging feedback.
Point 9: It is recommended that Figure 4 be presented in the same form as Figure 7.
Response 9: As per your suggestion, we have updated Figure 4 in revised manuscript (P14/L488-492).
Point 10: We know that the definition of urban and peri-urban watersheds is not easy. However, at least a definition or some basic characteristic to consider peri-urban watersheds is requested. This would help to dimension some places where the proposed methodology could be replicated.
Response 10: We have incorporated the definition of the peri-urban area as a foot to Figure 8 in the revised manuscript. (P14/L488-492).
Point 11: The authors report that the indicators used in the study are grouped into physical and climatic. Is there any possibility to reflect this classification when displaying the results?
Response 11: Thank you very much for the suggestion. The physical indicators are land use-landcover and abstraction, and climatic is nonother than climate change. Both indicators are already reflected in the results and discussion section of the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The submitted paper by Rana Ammar Aslam et al. titled “Modeling based groundwater adaptation policy guidelines for Lahore, Pakistan under projected climate change, land use change and abstraction scenarios” provides research on the pressures in urban aquifers. The authors used RCP 4.5 and 8.5 climate scenarios in order to investigate the variation of groundwater levels in the future. In the current research SWAT and MODFLOW models were combined for the assessment of the hydrogeological conditions in the area. The results are clearly analyzed. In my opinion, the manuscript is almost ready for publication. I would like to mention some comments for its improvement.
My recommendation is moderate revisions.
General comments
-Avoid using keywords that are already in the title.
-Abstract needs to be improved.
-Introduction is very poor. Provide more information about the simulation of surface and groundwater interaction. Add a historical line until up to date. Are there other similar studies?
-Provide hydrogeological cross-sections.
-The chapter on methodology is clearly analyzed.
Suggested literature
Modeling groundwater and surface water interaction: An overview of current status and future challenges (2022). Science of The Total Environment. 846, 157355. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157355
Simulating future groundwater recharge in a coastal and an inland catchments (2021). Water Resources Management. 35, 3617–3632. DOI:10.1007/s11269-021-02907-2
Formulation of Shannon- Entropy model averaging to groundwater level prediction using Artificial Intelligence models (2021). International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. JEST-D-21-00552. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. DOI: 10.1007/s13762-021-03793-2.
Author Response
General response: We thank you reviewer for providing valuable suggestions and recommendations. We have made necessary changes in the revised manuscript following the reviewers suggestions and recommendations. Changes are higlighted in the track change form. Further point-by-point responses to each comment are addressed below.
Point 1: Avoid using keywords that are already in the title.
Response 1: Thank you very much. We have ammended the title as well as keywords in the revised mansucript (P1/L1-3, 41,42).
Point 2: Abstract needs to be improved.
Response 2: As per your suggestion, we have improved the abstract in the revised manuscript.
Point 3: Introduction is very poor. Provide more information about the simulation of surface and groundwater interaction. Add a historical line until up to date. Are there other similar studies?
Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer's incisive remarks. The introduction has been updated as needed, particularly with the addition of recent literature on the uses of various modeling techniques. We have outlined our rationale for selecting SWAT and MDFLOW to be used in the study area for groundwater modeling. Please see Line# 80-104
Point 4: Provide hydrogeological cross-sections.
Response 4: Thank you for the suggestion. We have update the Figure 1 and hydrogeological cross-sections are incorporated in the revised manuscript (P4/L146-189).
Point 5: The chapter on methodology is clearly analyzed.
Response 5: Thank you so much for encouraging feedback.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
After reviewing the manuscript entiteled "Modeling based groundwater adaptation policy guidelines for Lahore, Pakistan 2 under projected climate change, land use change and abstraction scenarios". I am convinced that this manuscipt is a nice peace of work and can be considered fo publication after improvement.
Moderate editing of english language and style is required. Please try to improve your manuscipt regarding language and style.
References list needs a double check.
Abstract
Well writen!
Line 29: plaease replace "km2" by "km²"
Introduction:
I like this section. It's well writen! The used references are more relevant and recent to the topic.
The order of figure 1 is not correct. Should be within Materials and Methods section. Please move it to this section. In addition I cannot see the subdivisions a, b, c and d within the figure. The legend of this figure is not clear. The resolution of this figure must be improved.
Materials and methods
This section needs some improvement. The validation and the choice of such type of gridded climate data should be explianed and added to this section.
Results and discussion
As a reader it's very hard to follow this section. There is a non-coherence between results and discussion
I suggest to add "discussions" as a seprate section. And then the authors are invited to discuss thier results according to local, regional and/or international similar works.
Conclusion
This section should be rewriten once the discussion is done.
Author Response
General response: We thank you reviewer for providing valuable suggestions and recommendations. We have made necessary changes in the revised manuscript following the reviewers suggestions and recommendations. Changes are higlighted in the track change form. Further point-by-point responses to each comment are addressed below.
Point 1: After reviewing the manuscript entiteled "Modeling based groundwater adaptation policy guidelines for Lahore, Pakistan 2 under projected climate change, land use change and abstraction scenarios". I am convinced that this manuscipt is a nice peace of work and can be considered fo publication after improvement.
Response 1: Thank you so much for encouraging feedback.
Point 2: Moderate editing of english language and style is required. Please try to improve your manuscipt regarding language and style.
Response 2: Thank for valuable suggestions. We have carefully revised the Manuscript and made necessary changes to improve the quality of Manuscript
Point 3: References list needs a double check.
Response 3: As per your suggestion, we have checked and updated all references as well as citations at relevant places in the Revised Manuscript.
Point 4: Well writen!
Response 4: Thank you so much for encouraging feedback.
Point 5: Line 29: plaease replace "km2" by "km²".
Response 5: We have incorporated the suggested correction in the abstract and other places in the revised manuscript (P1,P3, P10, P11/L31,L103,117, 408, 410, 432).
Point 6: I like this section. It's well writen! The used references are more relevant and recent to the topic.
Response 6: Once again, Thank you so much for your encouraging feedback.
Point 7: The order of figure 1 is not correct. Should be within Materials and Methods section. Please move it to this section. In addition I cannot see the subdivisions a, b, c and d within the figure. The legend of this figure is not clear. The resolution of this figure must be improved.
Response 7: Figure 1 is updated and incorporated in Section 2.1 in the Revised Manuscript (P4/L146-189).
Point 8: This section needs some improvement. The validation and the choice of such type of gridded climate data should be explianed and added to this section.
Response 8: Thank you very much for the suggestion. The work included in this paper is part of the Ph.D. study, and we have already published the suggested analysis in our earlier paper (published in the International Journal of Climatology). So instead of repeating the analysis, we referred the reader to that paper.
Aslam, R.A., et al., Projections of climatic extremes in a data poor transboundary river basin of India and Pakistan. Interna-tional Journal of Climatology, 2020. 40(11): p. 4992-5010.
Point 9: As a reader it's very hard to follow this section. There is a non-coherence between results and discussion. I suggest to add "discussions" as a seprate section. And then the authors are invited to discuss thier results according to local, regional and/or international similar works.
Response 9: As per your suggestion, we have improved the results and discussion section. However, we kept it in combined form in the revised manuscript.
Point 10: This section should be rewriten once the discussion is done.
Response 10: As per your suggestion, we have improved the conclusion section.
Point 11: The authors report that the indicators used in the study are grouped into physical and climatic. Is there any possibility to reflect this classification when displaying the results?
Response 11: Thank you very much for the suggestion. The physical indicators are land use-landcover and abstraction, and climatic is nonother than climate change. Both indicators are already reflected in the results and discussion section of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors thanks for updating you manuscript and taking into consideration all my comments and remarks.
