Applying Electrical Resistivity Tomography and Biological Methods to Assess the Hyporheic Zone Water Exchanges in Two Mediterranean Stream Reaches

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I found the article “Applying electrical resistivity tomography and biological methods to assess the hyporheic zone water exchanges in two Mediterranean stream-reaches” very interesting and important to publish. However, I have some comments which I make in the points below.

I am not a native English speaker, it is difficult for me to evaluate the quality of the English language in general. The authors should read the text of the manuscript very carefully once again.

I suggest filling sections: Supplementary Materials; Author Contributions; Funding; Data Availability Statement; Acknowledgments

Please make citations in text uniform: for example line 349 or in table 4 there is “Fischer 1853”; in other situations there is [number].

Please uniform the line spacing – I have a feeling that sometimes there are doubled (example 358-359), sometimes not.

Fig 4- 5 seems to be very bad quality

Table 3 – “Temperatura” is not in English

Line 161 – there is a figure without a title

Line 155- photos are not described

Figure 1 – legends are not visible; in some cases (f) there is missing legend and scale

I think that the enrichment of the introduction with the SW-GW interaction measurement methods would enrich the whole text. There are several methods of measuring or modelling GW-SW interaction:  for example DOI: 10.24425/aep.2021.136450; https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-2329-2012 DOI:10.7717/peerj.13418; and others can be given.

 

I suggest major revision due to a number of editorial corrections needed.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Please find in the attachment the answers for the Reviewer 1. 

Best regards

Sanda Iepure

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors practically present an interesting combination of the ERT geophysical technique with biological methods for the assessment of hyporheic zone.

Although I found quite interesting the scientific approach I had faced problems with the form of the manuscript that confused me. For that reason, I think that the manuscript needs major revision. This is based on the fact that many figures (especially the ones for ERT) and their text description were not properly connected or were mis-placed. I believe that the main issue of the paper is related to the ERT figures, since I found the ERT text (method’s description and presentation of its results) well written.

On page 6, the Figure illustrating ERT results is Figure 3. On page 18, section 3.4, the ERT results and interpretation are described referring to a Figure 5, which is irrelevant. It’s not just a wrong reference to the fig’s number in my opinion,  but I believe that the authors should think a better presentation of the ERT. More specifically I have the following remarks:

1.       Figure 3 (or 5?) presenting the ERT results has been placed too early in the paper’s structure. In this place I would suggest that the authors should insert a more detailed map of the exact location of the ERT lines. For example, a part of the geological map with the ERT array (orientation, start-end of line etc). Not just a point in a map. In that way it would be easier to correlate the geology with the ERT results.

2.       The ERT results (ERT models) should be present at another part of the paper, somewhere close to section 3.4, where they are described in the text. And please enlarge a little bit the legend in order to be clearer.

3.       All the maps in Figure 1 are quite small. It is impossible to read the Legends. Please enlarge them.

4.       On the bottom of page 5 the photos are not described. What figure are they?

5.       The same regarding the Figure on page 7. No figure’s legend.

6.       On page 8, the Figure is number 2. But placed in the paper after Figure 3 (page 6) but also after the “untitled” Figure in page 7. Please, re-organize and re-name the Figures in the paper. It is confusing.

7.       Line 148: The geology is described by referring to Fig. 3, which is wrong. Please correct it.

8.       Generally, I believe it should be better if the referred to the ERT’s measurement unit as Ohm.m and not as ohm x m.

9.       I would suggest moving the paragraph of lines 192-197 before its previous one.

10.   Line 179: Can you please refer to some papers with relative case studies? And additionally, explain the reason for selecting ERT instead of other geophysical methods for subsurface water detection? For example, you could use some of the followings references:

Vasilatos, C., Anastasatou, M., Alexopoulos, J., Vassilakis, E., Dilalos, S., Antonopoulou, S., ... & Stamatakis, M. (2019). Assessment of the Geo-Environmental Status of European Union Priority Habitat Type “Mediterranean Temporary Ponds” in Mt. Oiti, Greece. Water, 11(8), 1627.

Busato, L., Boaga, J., Perri, M. T., Majone, B., Bellin, A., & Cassiani, G. (2019). Hydrogeophysical characterization and monitoring of the hyporheic and riparian zones: The Vermigliana Creek case study. Science of the Total Environment, 648, 1105-1120.

McGarr, J. T., Wallace, C. D., Ntarlagiannis, D., Sturmer, D. M., & Soltanian, M. R. (2021). Geophysical mapping of hyporheic processes controlled by sedimentary architecture within compound bar deposits. Hydrological Processes, 35(9), e14358.

11.   Section 2.2: Which method did you use for the topographic measurements that have been taken into consideration in ERT inversion?

12.   Since you have acquired the measurements with 1 m spacing you theoretically cannot discriminate a 0.5-meter zone as mentioned. The smallest grid cell is 1 meter. So, I would suggest being cautious with the regarding descriptions and mention the ambiguity due to the used electrode spacing.

13.   Line 188: I have doubts for using robust inversion. I believe that the limit between the saturated-unsaturated materials is transgressive and not sharp. If so, the least-squares inversion should be selected.

14.   Please consider drawing/adumbrate the limits of the discussed zones on the ERT results.

15.   Line 527: Can you specify exactly what is the “valuable information” provided by the ERT?

16.   Please fill in the necessary information in the following sections at the end of the paper: author contributions-funding-data availability-acknowledgement

17. Reference 34 is not written properly. Almost all citation information is missing

Author Response

Dear Editor

Please find attached the answers for the Reviewer 2. 

Best regards,

Sanda Iepure

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please read the following remarks:

Review on the paper:

“Applying electrical resistivity tomography and biological meth- 2 ods to assess the hyporheic zone water exchanges in two Medi- 3 terranean stream-reaches”

By

Sanda Iepure 1, 2, *, David Gomez-Ortiz 3, Javier Lillo-Ramos 3,4, Rubén Rasines-Ladero 5 and Tiziana Di Lorenzo

 

This in an interesting work that needs some explanation or clarification by the authors in some very important points.

Before I carry out my review I must inform that I am a Geophysicist and I dont have any training in Biology. So my views will reflect this bias.

The figures must be redone as I cant read the legends and most of the info in the figures themselves.

Fig. 3 in page 6 is out of order. Fig 2 is represented afterwards.

Line 184 What do you mean by anomalous values? Explain and exemplify.  This is very confusing because often we are trying to locate and identify anomalous resistivity zones.

Line 394 error in % or other? Please explain or add info.

In line 397 authors refer to experiments during June 2013 and April 2014. How many experiments did you carry out in each month?

Line 399 identify this zone in fig. 3.

Line 405 the same comment as for line 394.

Lines 409-410 the same comment as the one for line 397

Line 412 An explanation for the lower resistivity/high water content in the sediments  is necessary.

Line 413 the same comment as the one for line 399.

The interpreted layers must be identified in the models.

Line 419 if you mention the possible existence of a suspended aquifer please give more details on the geological model. Do you have any clay layers? Fig. 2 does not provide any evidence on this.

Line 469 what do you mean by water more mineralized? Mineralized in what? Do you have any evidence?

Line 510-560 I am sorry I dont understand these lines or the information contained in this part of the paper

 

Author Response

Dear Editor

Please find attached the answers for the Reviewer 3. 

Best regards,

Sanda Iepure

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I believe the manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Water

Author Response

Thanks for accepting the changes we provide. 

Kind regards

Sanda Iepure

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have improved the manuscript but unfortunately it has some minor corrections/improvements to be done:

1.       Figures 6 c-d & 7 c-d do not appear in the pdf file for some reason.

2.       Figures 6 a-b & 7 a-b: Their descriptions in the legends are still so small that we cannot read them. Please enlarge the font.

3.       Table 2: Please discriminate site 1 and site 2 (like in the old table)

4.  I believe that the authors’ response #11 should be included in the manuscript.

5.       Likewise, for authors’ response #15 in a way. You can mention what kind of information (as explained in the response)

Author Response

We thanks to the reviewer #2 for the accurate observations on this version of the manuscript. 

Kind regards,

Sanda Iepure

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

OK I think the contribution can be accepted now.

Author Response

Thanks for accepting the changes we provide. 

Kind regards

Sanda Iepure