Isotopic ‘Altitude’ and ‘Continental’ Effects in Modern Precipitation across the Adriatic–Pannonian Region
, István Gábor Hatvani 1, György Czuppon 1,2, István Fórizs 1, Dániel Erdélyi 1,3, Tjaša Kanduč 4, László Palcsu 2 and Polona Vreča 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study lies in the field of isotope hydrology and it is valuable for isotopic studies in this area. For my point of view no further corrections are required.
Author Response
We would like to thank the Reviewer for the endorsement of the Manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article "Isotopic 'altitude' effect and 'continental' effect in modern precipitation across the Adriatic-Pannonian region" describe spatial differentiation of the 18O and 2H isotopes concentration depends on the altitude and distance from the seacoast. The isotopes come with precipitation and are deposited in the environment. The knowledge about the isotopic 'altitude' and 'continental' effects in modern precipitation in the Adriatic-Pannonian region and it's seasonal changes and characteristic gradients, is important for isotope hydrology, palaeoclimatology, food authenticity etc.
The authors are using datasets from different national precipitation monitoring programs from Austria, Slovenia, Hungary and Croatia. This large-range area comparison is very interesting but authors need to improve their manuscript:
1. Please check dataset given in the supplementary materials. In my opinion, there is impossible to make this same plots as is given in Figure 2 and 4!
2. The dataset given in the supplementary materials should be presented in this same way as Table 1.
3. What is the quality of the data? Are the sampling methods and chemical analysis this same for each monitoring station? If not please write about the differences and possible errors. If yes, write this.
4. Table 1 - What is the coordinate system for Latitude and Longitude? Write [units] for Lat. and Long. Add in the elevation "a.s.l.".
5. Title - I suggest to change the title to "Isotopic altitude and continental effects in precipitation across the Adriatic-Pannonian region"
6. Keywords: why authors writing "elevation effect" and "altitude effect"? In the text, authors are using "altitude" so why "elevation"?
7. Units: write units in the proper way: it is [‰/100km] and should be [‰/100 km]. Change the minus symbol to "-" instead of "−".
8. When you are writing "m asl" should be "m a.s.l.".
9. Figure 1: Please write a source of the elevation model used in the map. I suggest making a scale and Nort arrow smaller. In the legend add units to Elevation. Maybe you can change the colour scale bar to more convenient - use colours. For pdf files, colours are better ;)
10. Line 118 - authors write about statistics which were done, like slope coefficients, p, r2. Unfortunately, in the manuscript, I can't find proper numbers. Figure 2 and 4 presented α and some numbers without explanation in the text.
11. Line 121 - Add after "Deuterium excess" "(d-excess)".
12. Figure 2 and 4 /description/ - add full name: "Deuterium excess (d-excess".
13. Figure 2 and 4 - add p and r2.
14. Write more about the Rayleigh rainout effect.
15. The authors writing about the differences between Apr-Sep and Oct-Mar. Did you think about the type of precipitation. Is there the difference between snow and rain precipitation and isotopes concentration? Write about this. In the higher altitudes during Oct-Mar period you can expect snow and snow with rain.
16. Line 187 and later - you are writing about "spring water". This information appears but there is nothing about the source of the dataset. Where samples were taken? What is data quality?
17. Line 234: what does it mean "... of the profile ate typically..."?
18. Line 281: please correct "norteastern" to "northeastern".
19. Acknowledgements: In my opinion, authors should thank all monitoring stations which gave or made available datasets!
Author Response
We would like to thank the Reviewer for all valuable comments and provide below the required answers. We will refer to the line numbers of the version with marked changes in the answers below.
Comment 1. Please check dataset given in the supplementary materials. In my opinion, there is impossible to make this same plots as is given in Figure 2 and 4!
Comment 2. The dataset given in the supplementary materials should be presented in this same way as Table 1.
Response 1&2: Thank you for the comment. The table has been restructured as requested. It now provides separate tables for the elevation effect and the continental effect.
In addition, the fit statistics have also been added to the table instead of placing them on Figs 2 & 4 as requested in question 13.
Comment 3. What is the quality of the data? Are the sampling methods and chemical analysis this same for each monitoring station? If not please write about the differences and possible errors. If yes, write this.
Response 3: We added text for clarification, please see explanation in text (lines 101-110): The sampling methods might be different but always employed a collector configuration approved for precipitation isotope analysis (IAEA GNIP Precipitation sampling guide, url: http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/documents/other/gnip_manual_v2.02_en_hq.pdf).
The analytical techniques may also differ between data sources (e.g., mass spectrometry for Slovenian samples, laser spectroscopy for the Hungarian and Croatian samples), however the raw values were converted by all laboratories to the same reference scale (VSMOW/SLAP) ensuring comparability and joint assessment of the data. In addition, measurements were carried out together with laboratory reference materials that are calibrated periodically against primary IAEA calibration standards to VSMOW/SLAP scale.
Comment 4. Table 1 - What is the coordinate system for Latitude and Longitude? Write [units] for Lat. and Long. Add in the elevation "a.s.l.".
Response 4: Accepted and corrected. Now the projection of the data is mentioned in the caption of Table 1 (EPSG 4326) as well as the measurements units in the header of the table.
Comment 5. Title - I suggest to change the title to "Isotopic altitude and continental effects in precipitation across the Adriatic-Pannonian region"
Response 5: We would like to keep the original title with the apostrophes because this is the traditional formulation/style.
Comment 6. Keywords: why authors writing "elevation effect" and "altitude effect"? In the text, authors are using "altitude" so why "elevation"?
Response 6: The traditional yet imprecise name of the phenomena is altitude effect, however elevation effect is also frequently used in literature. Thus, both should be at least mentioned for indexing purposes.
Comment 7. Units: write units in the proper way: it is [‰/100km] and should be [‰/100 km]. Change the minus symbol to "-" instead of "−".
Response 7: The suggestion on the units for the continental effect has been accepted and changed as requested.
Regarding the minus sign, this is a non-breaking hyphen (minus sign), which is used of regular minus when you don't want Word to break a line between the number and the sign if it is at the end of a line. We have systematically changed every minus sign before the numbers in the MS.
Comment 8. When you are writing "m asl" should be "m a.s.l.".
Response 8: Accepted and corrected everywhere necessary.
Comment 9. Figure 1: Please write a source of the elevation model used in the map. I suggest making a scale and Nort arrow smaller. In the legend add units to Elevation. Maybe you can change the colour scale bar to more convenient - use colours. For pdf files, colours are better ;)
Response 9: Accepted and corrected please see the revised figure.
Comment 10. Line 118 - authors write about statistics which were done, like slope coefficients, p, r2. Unfortunately, in the manuscript, I can't find proper numbers. Figure 2 and 4 presented α and some numbers without explanation in the text.
Response 10: Thank you for the comment. We have now extended the text at the end of the 3. Data and Methods section with an explanation that yes, these were used in the evaluation but “Only the slope coefficients are presented with their significance at the usually applied significance thresholds.”
Comment 11. Line 121 - Add after "Deuterium excess" "(d-excess)".
Response 11: Accepted and corrected.
Comment 12. Figure 2 and 4 /description/ - add full name: "Deuterium excess (d-excess".
Response 12: Corrected as suggested.
Comment 13. Figure 2 and 4 - add p and r2.
Response 13: Whether a given relationship is significant or not at the significance level α=0.01, 0.05 or 0.1 are marked with (***) (**) or (*), respectively in the figure. The exact value of p in each case does not provide excess information and the reader would anyhow have to evaluate whether it is below a given significance level (α=0.01, 0.05 or 0.1) the annotation presented is the most reader-friendly and commonly used.
Additionally, the statistics have been added to the Supplementary table.
Comment 14. Write more about the Rayleigh rainout effect.
Response 14: A short paragraph has been added about Rayleigh rainout process and d-excess in lines 176-181.
Comment 15. The authors writing about the differences between Apr-Sep and Oct-Mar. Did you think about the type of precipitation. Is there the difference between snow and rain precipitation and isotopes concentration? Write about this. In the higher altitudes during Oct-Mar period you can expect snow and snow with rain.
Response 15: Thanks for the comment. In the studied elevation transect precipitation is dominantly rain in the warmer season while only snow expected above ~1000m and a mixture of snow and rain in the lower part of the transect in the colder season. Since vapor—> ice fractionation is slightly larger than vapor—>water fractionation around the altitude where the regime switches from rain to snow (roughly corresponding to the 0°C isotherm) the condensed hydrometeor is expected to be less depleted in heavy isotopes than the vapor—>water fractionation would be still in action. This phenomenon might be an additional effect which spoil the monotony of the vertical upward decrease in precipitation δ18O causing that the fitted linear regression is frequently non-significant in the cold season. It has been incorporated to the revised manuscript in lines 199-207.
Comment 16. Line 187 and later - you are writing about "spring water". This information appears but there is nothing about the source of the dataset. Where samples were taken? What is data quality?
Response 16: The ‘altitude’ effect estimated from precipitation δ18O records in our study is compared to the ‘altitude’ effect estimated from spring water δ18O values published in independent studies (valley of River Radovna in NW Slovenia: Torkar et al..2001, Western Carpathians: Malík and Michalko 2010, and Eastern Carpathians: Fórizs et al., 2011) At all instances, the underlying study is properly cited. The quality of data is similar as the one for precipitation data obtained. For instance, in Slovenia; as reported in Torkar et al. the analytical precision was ±0.05‰ for oxygen and ±1‰ for hydrogen. All the technical information requested by the Reviewer can be found in the original study.
Comment 17. Line 234: what does it mean "... of the profile ate typically..."?
Response 17: It was a typo, ate should have been are.
Comment 18. Line 281: please correct "norteastern" to "northeastern".
Response 18: Accepted and corrected.
Comment 19. Acknowledgements: In my opinion, authors should thank all monitoring stations which gave or made available datasets!
Response 19: The only station where a volunteer collected samples has been acknowledged, others were gathered in a commercial way or personally by the authors. In addition, the freely available data (ANIP; Markovic et al., 2020) were properly cited in the MS. No change has been made.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper entitled “Isotopic altitude effect and continental effect in modern precipitation across the Adriatic-Pannonia regio” by Kern and co-authors presents a comprehensive investigation on isotopic content of precipitation spanning over January 2016 to December 2018. In detail, monthly values of d18O and d2H from 15 rain gauges allow to reconstruct an isotopic transect between Eastern Alps and Pannonian Region in which altitude and continental effect affecting such isotopes are estimated. Moreover, sources of the former clouds condensating over the study area are also proposed. In particular, it is evidenced, at 400 km far from the Adriatic sea, during the winter period a sharp drop of d-exc that may be due to air masses originating from the Atlantic ocean.
I enjoy reading this manuscript thatis fully on the scope of the Journal and can be a step forward to the application of such isotopes in hydrogeological studies involving this area. In my opinion the paper deserves to be published after (very) minor revisions that should be focused on:
- Introduction, lines 19-21: I can not understand the meaning, please rephrase
- Section 2: please consider to reconstruct this short paragraph giving more details on the main moisture sources in the area. This is an important section that is basilar for the further discussion and, in this version of the manuscript, it is difficult for the readers to have a summary of areas in which air masses originate and their main isotopic features(unless reading all the 7 cited papers). It may be helpful providing a table resuming meteoric lines together with d-exc (in which, for example, it can be directly verified that d-exc from Mediterranean areas should be close to +22, Atlantic ocean +10 ecc).
- Section 3: at the beginning d18O and d2H should be defined together with instrumental methods and precisions. Uncertainties should be reported also for dE.
- 1: this picture can be improved by inserting altitude as coloured rank (green to brown). Please put also different symbols for station used in continental effect assessment and those for altitude effect. In caption, refer to Table 1.
- Section 4: At the beginning, provide d2H-d18O regression lines as supplementary materials together with statistic parameters.
- Section 4.1: The statistical parameter of the fitted linear slopes (together with their standard deviations) should be added as supplementary materials.
- Section 4.2, lines 205-208: I do not fully understand this sentence. Please rephrase it providing more details.
- Section 4.2: lines 253-259: I agree with this sentences that seem in agreement with a former manuscript of Rank and Papesch (2005). In particular when I read it I was fascinated by their hysteresis curves reported in Fig.16 (d18O-dexc plots). Do you think this picture may be useful also for your study?
- Pay attention to typos such as line 37 (dot after characteristics) and line 199 (ocassionally).
RANK, D.; PAPESCH, W. Isotopic composition of precipitation in Austria in relation to air circulation patterns and climate. Isotopic Composition in the Mediterranean Basin in Relation to Air Circulation Patterns and Climate. IAEA-TECDOC-1453, IAEA, Vienna, 2005, 19-35.
Author Response
We appreciate the positive respond and would like to thank the Reviewer for all valuable comments and provide below the required answers. We will refer to the line numbers of the version with marked changes in the answers below.
Detailed responses uploaded as a separate document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made a lot of changes in the text and supplementary materials. In my opinion, the manuscript "Isotopic ‘altitude’ effect and ‘continental’ effect in modern precipitation across the Adriatic-Pannonian region" in the present form is well done and have a high scientific value. The methods and results are adequately described.
I have only few editorial comments:
Line 63 and 258: is "Ural Mts" and should be "Ural Mts."
Check in the text and add space between numbers and units.
Good job!
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
Comment 1: Line 63 and 258: is "Ural Mts" and should be "Ural Mts."
Response 1: Accepted and corrected as suggested.
Comment 2: Check in the text and add space between numbers and units.
Response 2: We’ve checked it. We used space between numbers and units at each and every instances throughout the paper. However didn’t use space between numbers and % or ‰ symbols because we followed the prescription of the Chicago Manual of Style as to write the number and percent sign without any space in between.
Good job!
Thanks for the positive opinion and your work devoted to the review of our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
The current version of the manuscript is slightly improved since the last one and, in my opinion, deserves to be published as it is. Only check at line 92 (water instead of waters and imprint in place of imprints).
Author Response
The current version of the manuscript is slightly improved since the last one and, in my opinion, deserves to be published as it is.
Thanks for the positive opinion and your work devoted to the review of our manuscript.
Comment 1: Only check at line 92 (water instead of waters and imprint in place of imprints).
Response 1: Accepted and corrected as suggested.
