Safe Groundwater Level Estimation in Pingtung Plain, Taiwan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well-organized. It has good potential and is well established by data and methods; the following comments should be addressed. I would like to suggest a Minor revision for this paper.:

Authors should improve their study area and methodology section. Needs proper explanation and justification or interpretation required as per their figure 1. It should be divided into two figures and improved.

2.     Sections about geology and hydrogeology should be added and separated from the study area section.

3.     Authors should add geologic mapfor the study area.

4.     Geologic cross section is not clear, and location should be added to the geologic map.

5.     A location map showing monitoring stations or water points should be added.

6.     The conclusion should be improved to include future suggestions and recommendations.

Quality of English language is acceptable. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is about a very important and very current subject. It presents studies that allow the management of groundwater exploitation towards an adequate sustainable use of that resource in the Pingtung plain region of Taiwan. The approach is not customary for most hydrogeologists, which is positive in terms of the publication of the article. Runs theory is used to analyze the safe groundwater levels, this being an important aspect in terms of innovation, for the study site, thus becoming the method closest to professionals in this field, to be followed in other locations in the world.

The article presents a very well-done introduction, framing the problem, explaining several concepts of interest to the article, with adequate references (although they could have associated some more recent references), in addition to presenting the objectives to be developed.

The geographic, geomorphological, climatic, and geological frameworks are adequate, however, in the case of geological aspects, Figure 3 does not accompany the text explained in the article. It would be important for Figure 3 to reflect the geological aspects mentioned in the paragraph on page 3 (lines 138-149). It should highlight the Tertiary, Quaternary and if possible represent the geological fault. These aspects are important in terms of harmonization of the article in the text-figure relationship, as it will allow hydrogeologist readers to better understand the data from the various wells.

At this stage, it is important to refer to the situation in Figure 1. The associated graphs of the observed groundwater level are almost invisible and thus useless. Perhaps, because the figure serves essentially to frame the reader geographically and other associated matters, it would be worthwhile to remove these graphs from Figure 1, to place them in a new and separate figure, for item 3.1. Then, consequently, adjust the sentence of lines 170 and 175, of page 5, line 171 ( sentence that appears in blue color in the pdf document, attached: peer-review-31222631.v1.pdf. In any case, Figure 1, it is important to keep the Observation Wells places.

The methodology is generally considered to be well developed, and will be improved with the introduction of the new figure. Also at this stage, in item 3.2, the text of the article when referring to Figure 4 (that after introducing the new figure, it will be Figure 5) , should be articulated with reference to the letters ho, L0, L1, ..., Q0, Q1, ... (therefore, these letters should be explained in the text).

Regarding the results and discussion, it seems good at first, however, the fact that the observed groundwater level of the observation wells is not clear in the current Figure 1, makes the sentence presented in lines 246 to 248 (text in yellow in the manuscript in attachment) barely perceptible to the reader. Once again it shows the need for a new figure, and that phrase to be adjusted, referring to it.

In the references, adjust accordingly [16]:  Saldarriaga, or Saldarriage, as referred to on p.2, line 71.

The figures sometimes do not have the necessary quality. In addition to what was previously mentioned about Figure 1 and Figure 3, see some criticisms, along with the figures, in the pdf document, attached, in addition to the need to make the type and size of font used in them compatible. For example, when comparing the typeface and size used in Fig. 2 and 3, it looks very ugly, and it is not appropriate for them not to be standardized.  Make the size and font of all figures compatible.

Finally, it should be noted that the proposed changes should be followed up with the detailed reading in the attached manuscript, where other complementary aspects for total improvement are presented.

Good work

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf