Groundwater Age and Origin and Its Relation with Anthropogenic and Climatic Factors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comment

The article is about a very current topic of great scientific interest, with high utility for society, particularly in terms of water needs for domestic and agricultural uses. In terms of methodology, it uses working techniques that are already relatively well known, applied in a region that greatly needs total knowledge about the available underground water resources and the impact on them based on their origin, age and relationships with anthropogenic and climatic factors. The studies carried out are fundamental in helping to create appropriate situations for the exploitation, management and maintenance of in-situ quality over time of groundwater resources, which are becoming increasingly less available due to climate change and excessive exploitation. This article is well-structured, well-developed, with its objective clear and achieved, and could be a good example to replicate in other regions.

Therefore, it is understood that it should be published in this journal, after several corrections, namely typos and adjustments to the Template, as presented below, and in the manuscript (in PDF, attached) with a record of proposed corrections (made in pdf- Nitro Pro9).

Detailed comments

Title: "Groundwater Age and Origin and its Attribution with Anthropogenic and Climatic Factors"

      Proposal to change the word "Attribution" to "Relation".

      Reflect on whether "relation" is appropriate for what the authors want to transmit. This situation occurs in other places in the text, which are referenced in the pdf manuscript.

 Abstract:

Pag.1 line 18, it is proposed to change the word "attribution" to "relation"

Page 1, line 19, delete ";"

Inside the article:

Page 2, lines 52 and 53, the position of reference [9] should be adjusted, i.e. it should be moved to make its reference more logical.

Page 2, line 76, the words "ensure the " are considered inappropriate; it is proposed to replace them with "have less uncertainty about", leaving the text:

"... Pakistan can have less uncertainty about long-term availability and quality of this essential resource..."

Page 2, line 96, the letter "k" in km should be lowercase

Page 3, line 114, it is proposed to put the name of the institution first and then the acronym, "Pakistan Metrological Department (PMD), as is customary, and which most of the time the authors follow in the article.        

Also, check that the word "Metrological" should not be "Meteorological".

Page 3, line 115, adapt in accordance with the previous change…

Pages 4 and 5, revise the spacing before subtitles, the numbering of subtitles and the format of references.

Page 6, carefully review the equations, particularly (3) and (4).

Pages 7 and following: review small typos similar to those presented above and others, as indicated in the pdf manuscript. Note the abusive use of parentheses "(...)", where it is not necessary when referring to figures in running text.

About Figures

According to the template, there should be a full stop (".") at the end of the figure description.

Figure 1: review the colors of the map (or legend), because the canals evolve from SW to NE, i.e. from areas with higher elevation to areas with lower elevation, so in areas to the S and SW they should not be redder colors?

Figure 7: review in Figure 7a, the EC values.   In all the graphs, it's also not immediately clear what "Q" and the associated asterisks are. Perhaps it would be more useful to put the equation of the line with the acronyms of the variables.

Figure 7 is referred to after Figure 8, this is not correct. You should rearrange the text so that the first time the figures are referred to, you follow the order from smallest to largest...

About Tables

According to the template, at the end of the description of the Table title, there should be a full stop (".").

Tables 1 and 2: review excess horizontal lines

Table 2: Review the Standard Deviation accounts.

About references

Throughout the text of the article, when two references are mentioned in a row, the authors often use a situation like [2-3], as for example in line 38, on page 1; according to the Template, it should be [2,3]. Make this correction and many others that appear in yellow on the pdf manuscript with corrections.

In the Final References (see Template), make several careful adjustments; for example, the names of the journals should be italicized.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Overall, it is acceptable, but several mistakes should be corrected, as well as the use of text referring to figures in parentheses in an inappropriate style, which should be corrected, within an adequate English language.

Author Response

We are very much thankful for your deep and thorough reviews, and your suggestions and comments will be useful in improving our manuscript. We took into account these comments and suggestions, and improved the manuscript accordingly. We have highlighted the modifications with “tracked changes on” in the revised manuscript. Number wise answers to the comments/suggestions are placed in the attached file. Hope this revision could meet the requirements of the Journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In abstact :

Line 26 : The authors mentioned earlier on the abstract that the main groundwater recharge source are rivers rather than rainwater (line 21). This sentence seems contradictive to the previous statement.

Line 132 : Perhaps the authors could mention the isotope analyzers.

Section 2.3 : You could probably name this part "analytical /laboratory work" to distinguish the dataset  part (2.2) from the laboratory work part.  

From line 152 to 169 : Authors may incorporate these  details within the introduction.

From line 173 to 176 : Illustrating these explanations in a  table would make it easier to read and follow.  

Section 4.3 :

From line 289 to 297 :

This part is confusing, are the authors conducting an analysis on groundwater or river water? The plots (Figure. 4) seem to refer to different  river water types. I will just assume that this paragraph  is referring to groundwater only. 

The correlation analysis is fine but authors may also rely on isotope description and interpretations of the groundwater samples compared to the GMWL and LMWL. If the groundwater samples are aligned with the LMWL and showing isotope depletion, it will be indicative of direct infiltration. On the other hand, isotope enrichment with samples placed below the LMWL would be indicative of evaporation before infiltration, diverted from allochthonous surface water that was affected by evaporation (See Jasechko et al., 2019 for better insights of recharge conditions). 

The GMWL used here doesn't seem correct. Perhaps the authors could also consider plotting the LMWL as well for better insight on precipitations origins.

How did the authors calculate these percentages? Was it the mass balance equation? If there is a specific method, it ought to be explained within the methodology section). 

In Fig. 4, The GMWL used here doesn't seem correct. Perhaps the authors could also consider

plotting the LMWL as well for better insight on precipitations origins.

In line 304 : How did the authors define the origins of each groundwater type? Was it based on isotopes? Percentages were calculated between lines 295  and 300, but the method was nowhere to be mentioned.

In Fig.5 : Calculating the altitude of recharge for the groundwater samples may also give

complementary informations on the recharge areas (maybe pathways as well?)

Section 5 :

The authors could benefit from great insight by incorporating stable isotope analysis on this section, by following the previous recommendations on section 4.3. 

From line 322 to 324 : Have the authors thought of mapping groundwater stable isotope samples? It will reflect the isotope differences between agricultural and urban groundwater. 

Author Response

We are very much thankful for your deep and thorough reviews, and your suggestions and comments will be useful in improving our manuscript. We took into account these comments and suggestions, and improved the manuscript accordingly. We have highlighted the modifications with “tracked changes on” in the revised manuscript. Number wise answers to the comments/suggestions are placed in the attached document. Hope this revision could meet your requirements 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

fine