Remotely Sensed and Field Data for Geomorphological Analysis of Water Springs: A Case Study of Ain Maarrouf

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of this study is to enhance the understanding of hydrogeological system of TMA to improve the existence of fracture database in the Causse of Agourai, and to establish a new morpho-structure picture of Ain Maarrouf water spring.  

General comments:

The topic of the study is novel, the method of using in the paper is appropriate, and the conclusion of the paper is credible. The author can use remote sensing technology and field investigation together, and the conclusion strongly demonstrates the relationship between regional geological structure and hydrogeology.  

Question:

1) Data sources:  In Figure 2, the ASTER-GDEM and Terra-ASTER were used in this research, but One question is accuracy of ASTER-DEM and Terra-ASTER data source, the vertical error of these data is greater than 20m, how to use this data to obtain very fine geological structure features such as faults? At the same time, how to match this data with high-precision remote sensing data, such as Sentinel-2 and Geoeye-1, to verify the reliability of the results?  

2) Methodology: There are many Lineaments presented in Figure.5, How to extract these features from Copernicus Sentinel-2 images based on Figure.2？how to compare them with the information in Tabular Middle Atlas？

Author Response

Please see the attachmnent

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

Your paper has overall good quality and scientific soundness. However, there are many technical errors through the text. For example, everywhere you need to put Figure xx in brackets (Figure xxx). Also, some sentences are strange and too complex, you can split them in two. Frequently, there is no space between the words or numbers. It is not clear why you choose ASTER GDEM, as 30-m global Copernicus DEM is much more accurate. Please elaborate this selection in the methodology. On the end, please make native English grammarly check-up. Some of the other suggestions are given in the pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is very good, but in some parts must be improved as some of the paragraphs and sentences are way too complex. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have mixed feelings about the manuscript. The importance of studies that explore the drainage paths within karst systems that are used as water sources is beyond any doubt. On the other hand, there have been earlier attempts (to which the authors refer), and it is difficult to find novelty in the present contribution. You do not accurately state what is new and the aims of the study are not completely clear. Note that the extraction of fault systems in Tabulate Middle Atlas from the remote sensing data has been shown by Muzirafuti et al. (2019). In the present contribution, karst landforms are detected using fill-sink tools, which is new when compared to the earlier contribution, but such automated approaches are not new (see, for example, de Carvalho Júnior et al., 2013). Of course, I could have failed to identify the new elements within your framework, but they should be shown in the introduction. For example, judging from the introduction, your other study (Muzirafuti et al., 2020) is much more interesting because it involves geophysical data, which are employed in this context rarely. This is why you show explain the importance of your new contribution to the readers.

Although I am not a native, I see many editing issues, which suggests that the manuscript requires a significant proofreading effort. Some of them make it impossible to identify the data sources you use in your study. See the comments below for examples. There are also some apparent issues related to the structure of the paper and the list of authors (?). Detailed comments are listed below. Therefore, a major revision is required before the manuscript is accepted for publication.

Main comments

Line 4 - Judging from the first page, the manuscript is single authored. However, the author contributions in lines 378-382 include a second author, who is responsible for writing a preliminary draft. Who is M.B. then?

Lines 158-160 - The structure of the manuscript is a bit messy here. You describe the processing of ASTER images in two places, including these lines and lines 324-328. The latter should be, in my opinion, placed in the Methods section, because they refer to the framework that you employ in your paper.

Lines 192-237 - The Results section is short and disappointing. You describe the water springs and fracture systems. The outcome of the filed study is shown in lines 274-286, in the Discussion section, but it fits better in the results. The same applies to the outcome of automated analysis of ASTER images. The results are described in lines 331-336. Moreover, in lines 321-331 (in the Discussion), the methods are outlined (the use of ArcGIS toolbox), which adds up to the unclear structure of the manuscript. This suggests that the discussion should be rewritten and in part moved to other sections.

Editing issues

Lines 67, 77 - Geographical names are not capitalised here.

Lines 127, 152, 178, 279 - In my opinion, numbers of figures should be placed in brackets, not directly in the text, to facilitate the comprehension of the manuscript.

Line 161 - Use the subscript for 2 in CO2.

Captions of Figures 3-4 - According to the caption, the image was acquired on "30/30/2017". In the caption of Figure 4 capitalise "Sentinel-2".

Line 177 - "numbers. It becomes" instead of "numbers. it becomes".

Line 309 - "species" instead of "spices".

Figure 16 - "Schists" instead of "Schistes".

References

de Carvalho Júnior, O. A., Guimarães, R. F., Montgomery, D. R., Gillespie, A. R., Gomes, R. A. T., de Souza Martins, É., & Silva, N. C. (2013). Karst depression detection using ASTER, ALOS/PRISM and SRTM-derived digital elevation models in the Bambuí Group, Brazil. Remote Sensing, 6(1), 330-351.

Muzirafuti, A., Boualoul, M., Randazzo, G., Lanza, S., Allaoui, A., El Ouardi, H., & Habibi, H. (2019). The use of remote sensing for water protection in the karst environment of the Tabular Middle Atlas/the causse of El Hajeb/Morocco. TRENDS IN EARTH OBSERVATION, 1, 131-134.

Muzirafuti, A., Boualoul, M., Barreca, G., Allaoui, A., Bouikbane, H., Lanza, S., ... & Randazzo, G. (2020). Fusion of remote sensing and applied geophysics for sinkholes identification in Tabular Middle Atlas of Morocco (the Causse of El Hajeb): Impact on the protection of water resource. Resources, 9(4), 51.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has undergone a significant improvement related mainly to its structure and editing. The author explains that the primary aim of the study is to investigate the springs located within the TMA, and this is clearly stated in lines 86-91. This means that this contribution is of local importance; the decision on whether such aims are sufficient for an international journal is up to the editorial office. However, the manuscript should definitely be published only after more proofreading work is completed. There are still many editing issues such as typos in geographical names, the inconsistent use of local names, and inconsistencies in referencing figures. The following are detailed comments that should help to improve the overall style of the manuscript.

Editing issues

Lines 164, 311, 371 - I recommend capitalising the name "Sentinel".

Lines 252-253, 264-265 - You have introduced the brackets in references to figures, but here you refer to figures straight within the sentences.  It is recommended to use a consistent style throughout the manuscript.

Lines 219, 241, 266, 299 - Inconsistent use of geographical names. You use "Causse of Agourai", but here the reader finds "Agourai Causse" and "Causse Agourai". In lines 266 and 299 "El Hajeb" is pronounced as "El hajeb" and "El hjeb". By the way, in other parts of the manuscript you use the geographical name "Saiss"; should not this be pronounced as "Saïss"?

Author Response

The manuscript has undergone a significant improvement related mainly to its structure and editing. The author explains that the primary aim of the study is to investigate the springs located within the TMA, and this is clearly stated in lines 86-91. This means that this contribution is of local importance; the decision on whether such aims are sufficient for an international journal is up to the editorial office. However, the manuscript should definitely be published only after more proofreading work is completed. There are still many editing issues such as typos in geographical names, the inconsistent use of local names, and inconsistencies in referencing figures. The following are detailed comments that should help to improve the overall style of the manuscript.

Dear reviewer

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions which will help me improve the overall quality of the manuscript. I would like to inform you that the primary aim of the study is to investigate the morpho-structure of karst water spring located in the contact of Saiss basin and the causse of Agourai. This is a case study conducted with methodological approach which can be applied to other regions. So, the contribution of is not of local importance since karst systems are available worldwide and the data used in this study can be found for those systems. The typos issues are corrected.  

 

Editing issues

Lines 164, 311, 371 - I recommend capitalising the name "Sentinel".

Thank you for the recommendation, I took it into consideration. And the correction was done.

Lines 252-253, 264-265 - You have introduced the brackets in references to figures, but here you refer to figures straight within the sentences.  It is recommended to use a consistent style throughout the manuscript.

Thank you for the recommendation, I took it into consideration. And the correction was done.

Lines 219, 241, 266, 299 - Inconsistent use of geographical names. You use "Causse of Agourai", but here the reader finds "Agourai Causse" and "Causse Agourai". In lines 266 and 299 "El Hajeb" is pronounced as "El hajeb" and "El hjeb". By the way, in other parts of the manuscript you use the geographical name "Saiss"; should not this be pronounced as "Saïss"?

Thank you for the recommendation, I took it into consideration. And the correction was done. In English the name of the basin is Saiss.