Analysis of Land Use Change and Hydrogeological Parameters in the Andean Semiarid Region of Ecuador
, Verónica Correa-Escudero 2, Darwin Pucha-Cofrep 3 and Franz Pucha-Cofrep 4,5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
This is a nicely written paper, but, unfortunately, I think you have sufficient data to support all the claims that you are making. Essentially you have 4 data points for the change in groundwater (the change in flow rate shown in table 3). You wish to relate that change in flow rate to change in land cover (shown in table 2). My first issue is why the "catchment area" for the wells changes, for example, well 1 in 2004 the total land cover reported is 145 ha but in 2016 land cover reported totals to 243 ha; it is not clear to me why this has happened.
You suggest that increase in groundwater is due to increase in infiltration. As the yield increases by 0,26 l/s is equivalent to 2 or 3 mm per year over the area that land cover is reported - and this seems reasonable. But, such a small change in infiltration rate could be due to other factors than just land cover change, and these issues do not appear to be discussed.
Minor issues
1) the coordinates in Table 1 would be better as latitude, longitude
2) why are the other 4 wells in Table 1 not reported on again in table 3 etc?
3) the text talks about using NDVI and an unsupervised classification for 2 time periods. NDVI is very sensitive to when in the season the data is collected, especially for dynamic land covers like grassland (that go from "green" to "brown" very rapidly. The legend for figure 2 and figure 3 suggest that the land cover information is coming from official sources and not the unsupervised classification of NDVI.
4) when you are fitting a quadratic equation through 4 data points (Figure 4) you should really report whether the fit is statistically significant, not just the r2
You have obviously done a lot of work and it is a well written paper, but the conclusions are, I think, overly ambitious.
Author Response
| REVIEWER 1: | |
| Comments and Suggestions for Authors | Authors' Appreciative Response |
| Dear Authors, This is a nicely written paper, but, unfortunately, I think you have sufficient data to support all the claims that you are making. Essentially you have 4 data points for the change in groundwater (the change in flow rate shown in table 3). You wish to relate that change in flow rate to change in land cover (shown in table 2). |
We sincerely appreciate your detailed observations and value the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work. We have taken into account all your comments to substantially enhance the quality of our article. In response to your insightful concern regarding, we gratefully acknowledge the observation. We have reviewed and adjusted the document, including the scope, objectives, and even the title of the article, to more accurately reflect our research. Thus, the new title is "Analysis of Land Use Change and Hydrogeological Parameters in the Andean Semiarid Region of Ecuador." Furthermore, in the abstract, we have modified lines 15 to 17: "This study analyzes changes in land use, vegetation cover, and hydrogeological parameters in Catacocha parish, situated in the southern Ecuadorian Andes region". Lines 22 to 24 have been changed to: "The study also examines the characteristic curves of the wells and their coefficient of storage. Additionally, it assesses the role of vegetation in facilitating infiltration and explores the potential relationship with precipitation patterns in the study area." Line 31 has been changed to: "hydrogeological parameters" |
| My first issue is why the "catchment area" for the wells changes, for example, well 1 in 2004 the total land cover reported is 145 ha but in 2016 land cover reported totals to 243 ha; it is not clear to me why this has happened. | Thank you very much for your insightful suggestion. We have corrected, completed, and updated the relevant information in the current Table 3, in the lines from 279 to 289. |
| You suggest that increase in groundwater is due to increase in infiltration. As the yield increases by 0,26 l/s is equivalent to 2 or 3 mm per year over the area that land cover is reported - and this seems reasonable. But, such a small change in infiltration rate could be due to other factors than just land cover change, and these issues do not appear to be discussed. | We greatly appreciate your insightful observation. We have included the corresponding explanation between lines 618 and 635. |
| Minor issues 1) the coordinates in Table 1 would be better as latitude, longitude |
We greatly appreciate your insightful suggestion. The information in Table 1 has been modified and updated. |
| 2) why are the other 4 wells in Table 1 not reported on again in table 3 etc? | Thank you very much for your highly effective observation. Since we were only able to obtain information from the 4 wells under study (Consacola 1, Chapango 2, Santa Marianita 5, and San Pedro Mártir 7), we have proceeded to update the information throughout the document. Specifically, Figures 2, 4, and 5 have been updated, along with Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4. |
| 3) the text talks about using NDVI and an unsupervised classification for 2 time periods. NDVI is very sensitive to when in the season the data is collected, especially for dynamic land covers like grassland (that go from "green" to "brown" very rapidly. The legend for figure 2 and figure 3 suggest that the land cover information is coming from official sources and not the unsupervised classification of NDVI. | Thank you very much for your highly effective observation. To address this effectively, we have included Figures 7, 8, and 9. Additionally, we have supplemented the corresponding explanations from lines 317 to 391. |
| 4) when you are fitting a quadratic equation through 4 data points (Figure 4) you should really report whether the fit is statistically significant, not just the r2 | We greatly appreciate your observation for improvement. We have included Figure 6.b and detailed explanations of the statistical analysis between lines 331 and 345. |
| You have obviously done a lot of work and it is a well written paper, but the conclusions are, I think, overly ambitious. | Thank you very much for your effective observation. Distinguished Reviewer, you are absolutely right. Thus, based on these kind and accurate observations, we have proceeded to completely rewrite the conclusions. "Please see the attachment." |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of "Contribution of Reforestation and Land Use Change to Groundwater Recharge in Ecuador's Semi-Arid Area". The manuscript deals with vegetation-recharge relationships by analyzing groundwater flows and land cover changes in the semi-arid parish of Catacocha in southern Ecuador. The manuscript is written well and seems to be promising. However, the following suggestions and comments must be addressed for possible acceptance of the manuscript.
1. In Table 1, include the details of the specific yield of each well.
2. Include a methodology flowchart to clearly present the steps involved/followed in the study.
3. Figure 6 requires detailed discussion, mainly because that is the gist of the paper.
4. Section 3.5: Discussion of results plotted is missing
5. Line 364: "The lithological well logs reveal a heterogeneous subsurface geology across the study area, with distinct hydrogeological layers intersected during drilling operations". The statement is not supported by data. Present the lithology well log data.
6. Line 484: Tailoring water management to the hydrostructural context of each wellfield is essential. Kindly elaborate on this.
7. Conclusion section: Line 500: "The results highlight the importance of native vegetation in enhancing rainfall infiltration and soil moisture to maximize aquifer recharge." In which section were the results presented to arrive at this conclusion?
8. Conclusions must be rewritten with study-specific content. The current one provides a broader and more general conclusion.
Author Response
| REVIEWER 2: | |
| Comments and Suggestions for Authors | Authors' Appreciative Response |
| 1. In Table 1, include the details of the specific yield of each well. | We greatly appreciate your accurate observation. We have included the Specific Yield in Table 1. Additionally, we have supplemented with Table 2: Aquifer and well performance metrics for the wells in the study (2004). The corresponding explanatory text is between lines 136 and 160. Furthermore, we have included Figure 3, Well Efficiency Diagram: Hydrogeological Parameters vs. Discharge in Wells (a) Well 1 - Consacola, (b) Well 2 - Chapango, (c) Well 5 – Santa Marianita, and (d) Well 7 – San Pedro Mártir. |
| 2. Include a methodology flowchart to clearly present the steps involved/followed in the study. | We greatly appreciate your accurate request. We have included Figure 1, Methodological Workflow Outlining the Investigative Steps, along with its corresponding text between lines 72 and 81. |
| 3. Figure 6 requires detailed discussion, mainly because that is the gist of the paper. | We greatly appreciate your accurate suggestion. We have improved the current Figure 11 (formerly Figure 6), and additionally, we have included the corresponding analyses between lines 457 and 478. |
| 4. Section 3.5: Discussion of results plotted is missing | We greatly appreciate your accurate recommendation. We have included the respective explanations and discussions between lines 663 and 677, supplemented with Table 5 and the text between lines 681 and 688. |
| 5. Line 364: "The lithological well logs reveal a heterogeneous subsurface geology across the study area, with distinct hydrogeological layers intersected during drilling operations". The statement is not supported by data. Present the lithology well log data. | Thank you very much for your very accurate observation. To diligently address your effective request, we have included Figure 12 and the corresponding details between lines 510 and 605. |
| 6. Line 484: Tailoring water management to the hydrostructural context of each wellfield is essential. Kindly elaborate on this. | Thank you very much for your highly relevant request. To address this accurate observation, we have included the text between lines 741 and 784. |
| 7. Conclusion section: Line 500: "The results highlight the importance of native vegetation in enhancing rainfall infiltration and soil moisture to maximize aquifer recharge." In which section were the results presented to arrive at this conclusion? | Thank you very much for your highly relevant request. Distinguished Reviewer, you are absolutely right. In response to your insightful concern regarding, we gratefully acknowledge the observation. We have reviewed and adjusted the document, including the scope, objectives, and even the title of the article, to more accurately reflect our research. Thus, the new title is "Analysis of Land Use Change and Hydrogeological Parameters in the Andean Semiarid Region of Ecuador." Furthermore, in the abstract, we have modified lines 15 to 17: "This study analyzes changes in land use, vegetation cover, and hydrogeological parameters in Catacocha parish, situated in the southern Ecuadorian Andes region". Lines 22 to 24 have been changed to: "The study also examines the characteristic curves of the wells and their coefficient of storage. Additionally, it assesses the role of vegetation in facilitating infiltration and explores the potential relationship with precipitation patterns in the study area." Line 31 has been changed to: "hydrogeological parameters" |
| 8. Conclusions must be rewritten with study-specific content. The current one provides a broader and more general conclusion. | Thank you very much for your effective observation. Thus, based on these kind and accurate observations, we have proceeded to completely rewrite the conclusions. "Please see the attachment." |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for responding to my comments in such a comprehensive manner. I hope you find the extra work is worth it and that you now get lots of citations.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have responded to all my comments and thoroughly revised the manuscript.
Few grammatical errors are found to be seen. (Example: Table 1 change the typo error: Latitud)
Conclusions: "The integration of vegetation cover analysis, precipitation, and underground hydrogeological data has critical implications for groundwater sustainability" (Cite: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeps.2015.06.061).
