Hydrogeological Characteristics of the Makaresh Carbonate Karst Massif (Central Albania)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents an overview of the characteristics of cold and thermal water springs in the northern part of Albania. The focus is the Makaresh karst massif, which has the highest concentration of thermal springs in entire Albania. The paper describes the main characteristics (physical and chemical) of selected cold and thermal water springs and artificial wells, which were analysed during several historical samplings. On the basis of these characteristics and geological mapping, rough interpretation of groundwater circulations is made. In the paper also some problems related to human activities in karstic catchment are exposed.

Paper is nicely structured, but there are also some shortcomings which need to be improved. In the following bullet points are rough descriptions, whereas more detail are within comments in PDF document:

- The quality of the English text needs to be improved. In general, the text is understandable, but quite frequently some sentences are written a little bit awkward, usually with wrong order of words and also using inappropriate words. Some sentences are very long and very difficult to read and understand and need to be reconstructed.

- Description of “materials and methods” need to be entirely improved. There is some information about geological and hydrological work, but it is not clear what was done by authors and what was done from previous studies. After reading the entire text I realized that only Table 1 and the caption of Fig. 8 provide some information about time of hydrological sampling and field measurements. These things need to be clearly described in methods with some additional information such as:

o    What exactly was done (field measurements of water, sampling of water, both, something else?)

o    When this work was done

o    How many times / how often this work was done

o    How many locations are observed

o    What seasons of the year this work was done

o    What were hydrological conditions during measurements (low water, high water)

o    What techniques and equipment has been used

- Description of “hydrochemical characteristics”: because of lack of information from methods, it is hard to illustrate what exactly present the values. The Table 1 finally indicates that presented values are reflecting the conditions during only one or two samplings at each location. It is a question of quality (and comparability) of results obtained through so low number of sampling, which were additionally done at very different years, seasons of the year and maybe also during different hydrological conditions. After the reading of the whole paper it is also not clear if (or how much) chemical composition at different springs is changing over time (during year or during long-term dynamics). All these things need to be clarified.

- The section about “groundwater circulation” is a little bit difficult to understand. There are some very long and complex sentences, which are quite unclear. As a result, the main message of the section is also unclear.

- Maps and graphs need some corrections, which are more detailed described in comments in PDF documents.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The quality of the English text needs to be improved. In general, the text is understandable, but quite frequently some sentences are written a little bit awkward, usually with wrong order of words and also using inappropriate words. Some sentences are very long and very difficult to read and understand and need to be reconstructed.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The paper presents an overview of the characteristics of cold and thermal water springs in the northern part of Albania. The focus is the Makaresh karst massif, which has the highest concentration of thermal springs in entire Albania. The paper describes the main characteristics (physical and chemical) of selected cold and thermal water springs and artificial wells, which were analysed during several historical samplings. On the basis of these characteristics and geological mapping, rough interpretation of groundwater circulations is made. In the paper also some problems related to human activities in karstic catchment are exposed.

Paper is nicely structured, but there are also some shortcomings which need to be improved.

We thank very much the referee for her/his comments.

In the following bullet points are rough descriptions, whereas more detail are within comments in PDF document:

- The quality of the English text needs to be improved. In general, the text is understandable, but quite frequently some sentences are written a little bit awkward, usually with wrong order of words and also using inappropriate words. Some sentences are very long and very difficult to read and understand and need to be reconstructed.

The manuscript was thoroughly revised, also with the help of a native English speaker, in order to improve its readability. Many sentences were split, in order to avoid long phrases.

- Description of “materials and methods” need to be entirely improved. There is some information about geological and hydrological work, but it is not clear what was done by authors and what was done from previous studies. After reading the entire text I realized that only Table 1 and the caption of Fig. 8 provide some information about time of hydrological sampling and field measurements. These things need to be clearly described in methods with some additional information such as:

o    What exactly was done (field measurements of water, sampling of water, both, something else?)

o    When this work was done

o    How many times / how often this work was done

o    How many locations are observed

o    What seasons of the year this work was done

o    What were hydrological conditions during measurements (low water, high water)

What techniques and equipment has been used

The section “Materials and methods” was entirely rewritten, in order to respond to the requests by the referees. We hope the new version might satisfy them.

- Description of “hydrochemical characteristics”: because of lack of information from methods, it is hard to illustrate what exactly present the values. The Table 1 finally indicates that presented values are reflecting the conditions during only one or two samplings at each location. It is a question of quality (and comparability) of results obtained through so low number of sampling, which were additionally done at very different years, seasons of the year and maybe also during different hydrological conditions. After the reading of the whole paper it is also not clear if (or how much) chemical composition at different springs is changing over time (during year or during long-term dynamics). All these things need to be clarified.

We tried to clarify these points, with many corrections and changes in the text (especially where indicated by the referees), and also by reworking on Table 1 and adding a new table (Table 2) where we listed and clarified all the measurements done.

- The section about “groundwater circulation” is a little bit difficult to understand. There are some very long and complex sentences, which are quite unclear. As a result, the main message of the section is also unclear.

The section in object was deeply changed, both in the overall structure and in the long and complex sentences. We hope the changes done might satisfy the referees.

- Maps and graphs need some corrections, which are more detailed described in comments in PDF documents.

In the revised version, all the comments on the figures were taken into considerations, and the new version of the figures followed all the suggestions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language: The quality of the English text needs to be improved. In general, the text is understandable, but quite frequently some sentences are written a little bit awkward, usually with wrong order of words and also using inappropriate words. Some sentences are very long and very difficult to read and understand and need to be reconstructed.

See response above

Specific comments from the pdf

All the corrections made by the referee on the pdf file were corrected accordingly.

Fig.1

• The north arrow is missing
• The numbers of latitude and longitude would be better to write in degrees (40 / 41 / 42°N and 20 °E)
• In the legend, the formations are probably marked with letters. Please mention this in the caption below figure. Or even better - add squares with corresponding colours in the legend - like for evaporites.
• The description of "red line with triangles" is missing in the legend.
• There is a strange pale yellow square on the left from the label Tirana and pale green next to the border with Kosovo. Please, correct this.
• Since you added the names of the neighbouring countries, you can indicate borders between them (just with a short line close to the Albanian border)

Figure 1 was adjusted taking into account all comments by the referee. The only exception was the numbers of latitude and longitude, that we preferred to leave as they were in the original figure.

Fig.2

• Scale bar is missing on both "a" and "b" maps.
• It is not clear, where the cross section of "b" map is made according to the map "a". Additionally, marking the cross section with 1-1 is not correct, because it doesn't tell us in which direction it goes. You have to change with different marks, for example 1-2. The same mistake is also on Fig. 4.
• There is a typing mistake: "clayston". Check also other text on the map.
• On Y axis of the profile you have to add "minus" marks for numbers below 0 m a.s.l.

Figure 2 was adjusted taking into account all comments by the referee.

Fig.3

• Please, rename "section" into "cross section" and "map" into "plan view". Please, add also north arrow for the latter one.

Figure 3 was adjusted taking into account the first comment by the referee. Unfortunately, within the only available survey of the cave (cross section and plan view) the indication of the north is missing; for this reason we are unable to insert north arrow in a correct position.

Fig.4

• Scale bar is missing on both "a" and "b" maps.
• Quite many typing mistakes in the text in the legend, such as "exstensive"; "aqufeers", "prctically", "feeflowing"; "water supply main". Check also other text.
• Please, mark each side of the cross section with a different marks, because if there is 1-1, the direction of profile is not clear (from the left to right or from right to the left?). Of course it is clear for me, but current way of marking is wrong anyway.
• The number "800" at Y axis at picture b) is not necessary.
• What means "the line of water supply main"? Do you mean "main water supply" there? Does the "line" mean the direction in which the water is guided for the distribution? Why some squares on the map do not have the line drawn?

Figure 4 was adjusted taking into account all comments by the referee. As regards the last comment, the referee is right, the term “line” refers to the direction in which the water is guided for the distribution. Since the term “main” is not necessary in the legend, we removed it.

Line 179: ascending character?

Ascending character is a type of behaviour characterizing springs such as the Fontaine de Vaucluse in France, with an ascending sump (also of great depth) in the final part of the system, close to the spring. It is a well-known feature of karst springs (see Stevanovic, 2015, and references therein), that does not need any further explanation, in our opinion.

Fig. 7

• There is so big difference between individual springs of White Water that it would be better to colour them differently or at least to write their names (numbers) on all 6 diagrams. It also looks that there are only two springs (red dots) shown on piper diagram, whereas on other 5 graphs there are three of them.
• On all plots there is TDS label, where in the caption under picture always TDN.
• It would be also better to put legend somewhere else - that it is not overlapping with individual graphs. The best place would be above or under all graphs.

Figure 7 was adjusted taking into account all comments by the referee.

Fig. 8

• Please, move the legend out of the chart area, because it looks, like there is another spring presented with a temperature about 20.5 °C and relatively low conductivity (2700 microS).
• You can mention in the caption, that red dots are presenting individual springs in White Water group of thermal springs.

Figure 8 was adjusted taking into account all comments by the referee.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. the title of article is undefined, and it is not easy for readers to understand the main contents of the article, title of article should be modified.

2. the characteristic and the innovation points of the article should be explained in detail.

3. references should be reduced.

4. conclutions should stress the main points. 

the quality of English language is ok.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

1. the title of article is undefined, and it is not easy for readers to understand the main contents of the article, title of article should be modified.

Following this comment, as well as those from other referees, the title has been changed.

2. the characteristic and the innovation points of the article should be explained in detail.

In the revised text, we tried to follow this indication, also taking into account the suggestions and comments from the other referees.

3. references should be reduced.

Actually, we do not need any reason to reduce the references. All of them are useful to readers, in our opinion

4. conclutions should stress the main points. 

The conclusions have been revised, in the attempt to stress the main points.

Comments on the Quality of English Language: the quality of English language is ok.

Thanks for the comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

l. 40: what do you mean by " 90 m3/s exploitable groundwater resources"? Please reword.

L. 69: is this a compilation of published data? Who did the measurements? The authors?  When? Where? What methods?

L; 81:not macro components, but major elements. L L. 267 table 2: not micro components but minor and trace elements. Please use appropriate scientific vocabulary.

l. 158:  " Temperature of the cold springs is about the yearly average temper-157 ature of the area (15°C), while the thermal springs show temperature higher than 5°C "; Do you mean that the thermal waters are colder than the cold springs? Please pay attention to the writing.

l. 282 and abstract: dissolution and not solution

l. 285: higher than what?

l. 287: "according to many researchers" without references is not appropriate in a scientific paper.

L; 296: what is the proof of this statement ("thermal waters are recharged by the deep circulation system")?

L; 309-313: gibberish, not scientific. What are issues 1 and 8 anyway?

l. 321-406: how do you calculate these mixing ratios? What are the endmembers? It cannot be cold and thermal waters.

l.  363-378: this description of usage development does not belong to the journal Water.

This paper presents what appears as a compilation of data collected over the years and published in various reports. The scientific value of the paper is very low, with very approximate wording and inaccurate vocabulary. A lot of sentences are statements without proofs and as such without any way to check them. For example, it is not said what leads to conclude to the mixing of the two water types.

This paper may have some value to the local authorities  that may want to develop the use of the spring waters.  It does not belong to a peer-reviewed journal.

The paper needs rewriting.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

1. 40: what do you mean by " 90 m3/s exploitable groundwater resources"? Please reword.

We mean that 90 m³/s of groundwater resources contained in carbonate aquifers can be exploited. The sentence was adjusted in order to make it clearer.

1. 69: is this a compilation of published data? Who did the measurements? The authors?When? Where? What methods?

The section “Materials and methods” was entirely rewritten, in order to respond to the requests by the referees. We hope the new version might satisfy them.

L; 81:not macro components, but major elements. L L. 267 table 2: not micro components but minor and trace elements. Please use appropriate scientific vocabulary.

The sentences were revised according to this comment.

1. 158: " Temperature of the cold springs is about the yearly average temper-157 ature of the area (15°C), while the thermal springs show temperature higher than 5°C "; Do you mean that the thermal waters are colder than the cold springs? Please pay attention to the writing.

Thermal waters are warmer than cold springs of 5°C. We corrected the writing.

1. 282 and abstract: dissolution and not solution

The text was revised in both the indicated points.

1. 285: higher than what?

The text was revised to clarify the point.

1. 287: "according to many researchers" without references is not appropriate in a scientific paper.

There are references at the end of the sentence; nevertheless, we revised the text, and deleted those words.

L; 296: what is the proof of this statement ("thermal waters are recharged by the deep circulation system")? 

As indicated in the continuation of the sentence, the high water temperature, the high ions concentration and the presence of gases dissolved in water are to us the proofs.

L; 309-313: gibberish, not scientific. What are issues 1 and 8 anyway? 

We disagree with the term “gibberish”. Anyway, we changed the word “issue” with the word “spring”. Nevertheless, we precise that the term issue is also used in many scientific papers dealing with hydrogeology to indicate points of emergence of water at the surface.

1. 363-378: this description of usage development does not belong to the journal Water. 

We do not understand this comment, also because we are submitting to Hydrology….

This paper presents what appears as a compilation of data collected over the years and published in various reports. The scientific value of the paper is very low, with very approximate wording and inaccurate vocabulary. A lot of sentences are statements without proofs and as such without any way to check them. For example, it is not said what leads to conclude to the mixing of the two water types. 

Frankly, we disagree with this comment. It is true that the work consisted of putting together available data with others from our own campaigns, and we tried to explain this better by entirely rewriting the section on “Materials and methods”. We made any possible effort to justify our statement (we do not believe we are without proofs, as claimed by the referee) in the revised manuscript.

This paper may have some value to the local authorities  that may want to develop the use of the spring waters.  It does not belong to a peer-reviewed journal.

We disagree with this comment. In addition to local authorities, we are here describing a significant carbonate aquifer of Albania, characterized by different types of waters, a topic which is undoubtedly of interest to the scientific community.

Comments on the Quality of English Language: The paper needs rewriting.

The English language has been deeply revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Cold and thermal waters circulation systems at the Makaresh carbonate karst massif (central Albania)

I am very sorry to say it, but only the following passages in the body of the article are exactly related to this title:
- lines 25-26;
- lines 148-154;
- Figure 4;
- lines 168-182;
- Figure 5;
- lines 188-204;
- lines 209-215;
- partially Table 1;
- Chapter 7, but not 100%;
- The bibliography, but not in its entirety.

As a result, a reconsideration of the title is needed, or a readjustment of the text to the title (the first version, I think, is infinitely easier).
In fact, the authors present a kind of complex hydrogeological study, focused more on the analysis of some physical-chemical components, than on the dynamics in time and space of underground waters, where their circulation falls.
Please, adapt the title to these aspects and otherwise the problems will arise ....

The abstract should be written after reconsideration, and half of its composition should be eliminated or reoriented, since it is a general presentation.
The objective/objectives of the study must be specified very clearly, both in the abstract and at the end of the Introduction, which, moreover, must be consistently expanded in the "State of Art" direction related to the new title.

Figure 1 does not show only a polygon representing "Study area". Show, only some tectonic provinces of Albania and some sites of analyzed springs.
Please adapt.

In Materials and Methods, nothing is written about groundwater circulation, instead, there are a lot of citations from the literature, which lead us to think of a review and not a scientific article.
I don't know if pH is physical parameter ... https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=what+is+pH

In Figures 2 and 4 I do not see the graphic scale represented.
In Figure 3, the ”MAP” is not a map but a plan sketch (so, probably, ”PLAN” representation), and for the geological profile in the section, about two specified cartographic elements, a hatch, etc. would be needed.

The conclusions must be reconsidered after the decision to reorganize the article, under an appropriate title.
Success.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

Cold and thermal waters circulation systems at the Makaresh carbonate karst massif (central Albania)

I am very sorry to say it, but only the following passages in the body of the article are exactly related to this title:
- lines 25-26;
- lines 148-154;
- Figure 4;
- lines 168-182;
- Figure 5;
- lines 188-204;
- lines 209-215;
- partially Table 1;
- Chapter 7, but not 100%;
- The bibliography, but not in its entirety.

As a result, a reconsideration of the title is needed, or a readjustment of the text to the title (the first version, I think, is infinitely easier).
In fact, the authors present a kind of complex hydrogeological study, focused more on the analysis of some physical-chemical components, than on the dynamics in time and space of underground waters, where their circulation falls.
Please, adapt the title to these aspects and otherwise the problems will arise ....

Following all these comments, as well as those from other referees, the title has been changed.

The abstract should be written after reconsideration, and half of its composition should be eliminated or reoriented, since it is a general presentation.
The objective/objectives of the study must be specified very clearly, both in the abstract and at the end of the Introduction, which, moreover, must be consistently expanded in the "State of Art" direction related to the new title.

The abstract has been rewritten, specifying the objective of our study, and accordingly the introduction and conclusions were changed, too .

Figure 1 does not show only a polygon representing "Study area". Show, only some tectonic provinces of Albania and some sites of analyzed springs.
Please adapt.

The figure was corrected, also taking into account the comments from the other referees.

In Materials and Methods, nothing is written about groundwater circulation, instead, there are a lot of citations from the literature, which lead us to think of a review and not a scientific article.
I don't know if pH is physical parameter ... https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=what+is+pH

The section “Materials and methods” was entirely rewritten, in order to respond to the requests by the referees. We hope the new version might satisfy them.

As for pH, the sentence was corrected.

In Figures 2 and 4 I do not see the graphic scale represented.
In Figure 3, the ”MAP” is not a map but a plan sketch (so, probably, ”PLAN” representation), and for the geological profile in the section, about two specified cartographic elements, a hatch, etc. would be needed.

The figures were corrected, also taking into account the comments from the other referees.

The conclusions must be reconsidered after the decision to reorganize the article, under an appropriate title.
As stated above, in another reply to a comment by the referee, the conclusions are one of the sections that have been changed, in order to follow the referees’ comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The autjhors  have somewhat improved their manuscript that may be of interest to local people people in Albania.

Reviewer 4 Report

Title adapted to the paper content and structure updated. The article can be considered for publication.