Estimation of Hydraulic Properties of Growing Media from Numerical Inversion of Mini Disk Infiltrometer Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-written, but there are still some areas for improvement. My suggestions for improvement of this manuscript are as follows:

• Clearly articulate the primary research objective to provide a well-defined focus for the study, ensuring the research purpose is explicit and aligned with the contribution of the study. The objectives should be reflected in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion.
• A more robust justification is needed for the selected methodologies, explaining their suitability and advantages over alternative approaches for addressing the research problem.
• Expand the scope of the literature review to include recent and relevant studies, critically analyzing existing research to highlight the novelty and significance of the current study.
• Provide a comprehensive explanation of the MDI setup and calibration process, including the water tension used and the specific steps taken to minimize experimental error. This ensures reproducibility and helps the reader understand how the device's limitations were addressed in the study.
• Compare the MDI results with those from the double-ring infiltrometer, which is the standard tool for measuring infiltration rates. Or include relevant studies that show correlations between the two methods to validate the reliability of MDI and highlight its advantages or limitations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

although the submitted manuscript is well-structured and relatively clear, and it applies an appropriate methodology for estimating hydraulic parameters from mini-disk infiltration data using the HYDRUS software, its overall contribution to the field of hydrology appears rather limited. This is mainly due to the strictly laboratory-based setting and the focus on only three artificial substrates. The narrow scope and specificity of the tested media reduce the general relevance and practical applicability of the findings, particularly in the absence of natural soil profiles or real-world hydrological conditions. Therefore, careful consideration by the editor and possibly other reviewers is recommended before deciding on the acceptance of this manuscript.

In addition to this key factor, I have the following comments on the submitted article:

1) Although Table 1 presents directly measured saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) and Table 10 includes inverted Ks values estimated via HYDRUS, the manuscript lacks a direct comparison or critical discussion regarding the consistency between these values. Given that the inversion procedure is a central methodological element of the study, such a comparison would significantly enhance the validation and credibility of the proposed approach. The authors are encouraged to explicitly address this aspect.

2) The manuscript lacks a dedicated discussion section, which would be essential for a more thorough reflection on the obtained results. In particular, the comparison between the wetting and drying retention curves is not sufficiently addressed, nor is the consistency of the modeled hydraulic parameters with values reported in the existing literature. Likewise, the discussion of the hydraulic conductivities results (as mentioned in comment 1). Including such a discussion would provide valuable context for assessing the broader applicability and reliability of the findings.

3) One important aspect that seems to be missing from the manuscript is a clear description of the boundary and initial conditions and model settings in the HYDRUS-1D simulations. Although the authors mention the use of inverse modeling to estimate hydraulic parameters, they do not provide sufficient detail about the modeling setup. These parameters are critical for ensuring the reproducibility of the simulations and for evaluating the validity of the inverse modeling results. I recommend that the authors provide this information in the revised version of the manuscript.

4) Furthermore, I recommend including the exact number of infiltration measurements conducted for each substrate. This would allow for a more accurate assessment of the reliability and variability of the results.

The authors are encouraged to carefully address the specific comments above; however, given the limited scope and laboratory-based nature of the study, I particularly recommend that the editorial board thoroughly evaluate whether the manuscript aligns with the broader aims and scope of Hydrology.

Regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have incorporated all the suggested changes in the revised version of the manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

All comments have been resolved. Thank you for reactions and answers.

note: I recommend that the editorial board carefully consider whether the manuscript fits within the aims and scope of Hydrology. 

Regards