Parsimonious Model of Groundwater Recharge Potential as Seen Related with Two Topographic Indices and the Leaf Area Index

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thre aim of the paper is to delineate potential aquifer recharge centroids by utilizing the degree of spatial organization within a convergence/divergence matrix, the closed depressions and vegetation expression. Overall the topic is quite interesting but a few aspects should be improved.

1. Please explain the shortcut LAI in the abstract.
2. Please extend the description of the study area in the range of topography, please add the map, 
3. There is a lack of the hydrogeological conditions description. 
4. There is a lack of the flowchart of the performed research
5. The discussion chapter should be rearranged. This chapter should take into account also relation to the other indices and similar research. 

Author Response

REVIEWER’S GENERAL COMMENT. The aim of the paper is to delineate potential aquifer recharge centroids by utilizing the degree of spatial organization within a convergence/divergence matrix, the closed depressions and vegetation expression. Overall the topic is quite interesting but a few aspects should be improved.

• Please explain the shortcut LAI in the abstract.
  • Thanks for the observation. Done
• Please extend the description of the study area in the range of topography, please add the map,
  • Thanks for the observation. Done. All figures was renamed, also.
• There is a lack of the hydrogeological conditions description.
  • An allusive paragraph was included in the introduction section.
• There is a lack of the flowchart of the performed research
  • A graphical summary (flowchart) of the process of obtaining the potential groundwater table discharge points was included in the manuscript as an additional figure.
• The discussion chapter should be rearranged. This chapter should take into account also relation to the other indices and similar research.
  • Thanks for the observation. We tried our best to enhance the discussion section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments are attached as a separate file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

1. The literature review needs to be updated. Almost all references are from before 2020. The authors must include the latest research from the last 3-4 years.

Response: Thank you for the observation.

We did a broad exploration to incorporate more recent literature on the study area and unfortunately did not find material of interest that we could incorporate into the manuscript.

2. Some part of the Materials and Methods should be moved to the Results section. For example, Figs. 2 to 5 and their related details are best suited to be in the Results section.

Response: Thank you for your comments.

Regarding the relocation of the figures to the results section, we considered your opinion valuable and relocated the figures resulting from the model implementation and sample selection. We left the preceding figures in the proposed location because they are the images that feed the model and do not necessarily imply a result per se.

3. Language and grammar corrections are required at various places.

Response: Thank you for your comments.

We revised the manuscript twice and found some grammar issues.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx