Assessing the Effect of Conduit Pattern and Type of Recharge on the Karst Spring Hydrograph: A Synthetic Modeling Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article uses the generalized conduit geometry types and the recharge pattern（diffuse and point infiltration）to evaluate the characteristic parameters of hydrographs, which has certain innovation and highlights.
(1) Three types of conduit including curvilinear branchwork, rectilinear brachwork and network maze, were selected to be generated with MATLAB codes in this article. It is necessary to show more clearly the parameters such as node, length, diameter, and density of the conduit network.
(2) According to general experience, as shown in Figure 2, the diameter of the maze type of conduit is larger than that of the branched type conduit. Why is the diameter of the maze conduit in Table 1 smaller?
(3) The diffuse recharge rate in line 285 is 10-8m/h, but in Figure 7 the value of 10-3m/h were used . What are the parameters for point and diffuse recharge rate respectively in the article?
(4) What does the legend of yr in Figure 17 mean?
(5) In Chapter 4, there is insufficient information on the development of conduits in Wakulla and Sally Ward springs.
(6) In Figure 18, the labeling points in the hydrological curves of Oje de Agua Spring and Oje de Guillo Spring are not clear.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This was a nice presentation of simulations that provide important insight into spring hydrographs in karst systems. After the authors improve the english in this paper, it will be a nice addiction to the karst hydrology literature. I've included a annotated pdf with some english corrections. I have not corrected all the errors I saw, especially if they were a second occurrence of an error.
I do not think the case studies add to the content of this paper. Some of this information could be moved to the introduction to show why this work is important. I found the comparison with the modeling results difficult to follow and thought it was not justified by the results.
The tables of results and scenarios must me made more compact. The long tables are difficult to use to 'see' the differences between simulations. It would be better to present the numerical data for the scenarios in some kind of graphical format so the reader could quickly compare simulations results (radar chart or something similar?).
I felt the detailed description of MODFLOW was not needed. This is a well documented program and could be described in a paragraph with appropriate references. I think this distracts from the novel aspects of this paper.
The authors should consider moving some graphics to supplmentary material and only including images of the conduit networks that highlight the differences between the scenarios.
The authors should also include modflow files (at least the input text files) and matlab scripts in supplementary materials so that someone could rerun these models to compare them with other models in the future.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
