Interaction between Groundwater and Surface Water in the Qujiang River Basin in China: Evidence from Chemical Isotope Measurements
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have gone through the manuscript entitled “Analysis of Groundwater-Surface Water Interaction in the Hydrological Cycle of Typical Red Beds Regions”. The topic is more relevant to the journal aims and scope. The manuscript content is fruitful for groundwater management. However, the manuscript needs major revision. The major drawback in this manuscript is discussion. The discussion part is not supported by the citations. Further, the authors relied only with TDS and isotope data. Other geochemical parameters are not applied to verify or support the discussion. The following corrections should be resolved before publication.
1. Study area name should be added in the title or keywords
2. Introduction is not supported by citations
3. Table 1. Change the column title
4. Water analysis – No IBE and accuracy details.
5. Combine results and discussion if possible, which avoid the repetition in the text
6. Piper diagram – use different colours for SW and GW
7. Figures – Legends are not legible. Increase the size
8. Gibbs plots – x-axis scale should be 0 to 1.
9. Gibbs plot – rainfall input is not predominant. Check it
10. Figure 8. Plot all the isotope data for SW and GW along with line. Only line is not sufficient.
11. Discussion should be supported by citations.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish editing needed.
Author Response
DearReviewer,
Thank you for the suggestions for the changes, which are valuable to me. I have explained each of the points of your suggestion. And after revising the manuscript, I will upload it one by one. Because this is my first time writing a thesis, the time is a bit procrastinating. I apologize for the inconvenience caused to you by my lack of ability and experience.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAnalysis of Groundwater-Surface Water Interaction in the Hydrological Cycle of Typical Red Beds Regions
By Liu et al..
Title: ii am commenting after I completed reading the manuscript. The authors used strong title but no relation with the presentation. The work did not focus on ‘Red beds” which I did not understand its mineralogical composition and geological significance, besides conducting a spatially interpolation for data collected from rivers. Even tough water cycle was mentioned on the title in addition to describing it in Lines 52-59, there is no relevance with the work. The authors tried to link it with the Gibbs diagram, but that is not the way to go. The title has to be changed to reflect the content of the work.
Line 13: Zhejiang Province, China
Line 25/26: Hydrochemical representation: cation-anion order
Line 36: average percentage contribution
Format superscript: line, 37, 39
Line 38: average percentage contribution
Line 45/47: This sentence is long and is not clear.
Line 56: …or in water bodies… is not correct
Line 57: ….along the surface….change to ..” on Earth surface”
Line 71: space
Some sentences are not clearly written. Line 72/73. The usage of the word “technology’ is not appropriate.
Line 76: nitrate and sulphate are not conservative anions and cannot be used for tracing hydrochemistry.
Line 81: delete..”surface”..
Line 92; explain what ‘red formation’ is
Line 101: provide citations
Line 101-102: please provide a clear geological description of the area. mineralogically/Lithologically, what is the composition of the red formation? fractured rocks etc.. Present a geological map: The description (Line 148-160) has to be conducted based on the lithostratigraphic order (older first and younger last). In the legend of the geological map, the older lithology must be placed at the bottom and the younger lithology at top.
Line 107: provide hydrogeological description and map of the area. How may aquifers are there? what type of aquifers are there? what is the groundwater depth (or SWL), groundwater flow (map), provide effective porosity, hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity of the aquifer that could facilitate exchange of water between surface water and groundwater.
Line 109-114: this sentence has to be placed in the methodology section.
Line 114-117: move to the conclusion section
At the end of the introduction, please present the main objectives of the work
Line 124: rivers cannot criss-cross.
Figure 1. please provide map of China as inset. what is the circle represent? it is not clear for international readers.
Line 136: please provide map of China as inset. what is the circle represent? it is not clear for international readers. Surface water sampling points are not visible. what is the importance of the lower map?
Line 139: Summer season is……, while winter is…..
Line 140/141. Provide citation for the source of temperature and rainfall data.
Line 143-147: Is this seasonal variation different from summer and winter mention above? Please harmonize your presentation.
Provide average annual plots (T, P) that helps to see the seasonal effect.
Line 148+: here is the geology. Please give subheading under section 2, such as 2.1 climate, 2.2 Geological setting etc…
Line 148-160: I hope the authors are not the first to describe the geology and hence, please provide citations and geological map. (comment given above.) the geological presentation did not include the lithology. E.g, when you say Ordovician and Cambrian strata etc. it that shale, limestone, granite etc. ?
Line 162/164: in the geological section you have to describe what Red beds are. In the hydrogeological section, it is not clear why red beds are not grouped with others in ‘fracture’ is the target.
Line 168: what do you mean? fractures are open systems. only rocks weather.
Line 173: move table 1 to the result section. In any analytical chemistry, there is no result called zero (0). Always there is a trace amount. Hence change all zeros to the detection limit of the instrument. Mention also that the data are for groundwater samples.
Line 229/230: I did not see any evidence to substantiate this claim.
Line 233/234: why? it shows disconnection. gw could be receiving recharge not from the surface water but recharged regionally. Otherwise, it is essential to validate with stable isotope or gw flow map.
Line 237: you did not present any data on TDS. Where is Electrical Conductivity?
Line 247: It is very difficult to understand the changes from upstream to downstream. please put all of them in one Piper plot and use different markers. The surface water marker is not visible in the plot. You have sulphate and chloride water containing Na and Ca in the plot.
Line 241-242/255: pH cannot be used to justify interaction since it is not conservative.
Line 270: The Gibbs 1970 plot was dedicated to surface water chemistry and it is possible to use for groundwater. However, the ion concentration in groundwater is higher than the surface water.
Groundwater chemistry and the Gibbs Diagram, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2018.07.009
Therefore, it is important to pay attention on samples that fall outside the Gibbs boundary and also the role of evaporation/precipitation, which were identified in surface water, in the groundwater samples.
This is because groundwater has wide range of composition as compared to surface water that solely receive precipitation and limited baseflow.
Line 282/283/285 (Figure 6): Please use the same range of GIS classification, which will help you to see the similarity.
why is it important to spatially interpolate for surface water where sampling was conducted along a flow path (line)? Based on your current spatial plot, there is very limited areas where surface water has similar 18O like groundwater. specially along the river corridor.
When you mention about “groundwater” which aquifer is your target? Shallow depth, intermediate, deep etc..?
Line 299: you did not present any geological plot if Red beds are present in your area.
Line 207-303/305: Figure 7, the same comment as in Figure 6.
Line 308: the usage of ‘water cycle” is confusing.
Line 309-320; There is no evidence to support these claims. there is no place where geology or hydrogeology was argued as a motivation for such a discussion.
Line 322-323: no evidence presented. What is the extent of anisotropy and heterogeneity of the red beds? It is not clear to me at all.
Line 356/357: Local Meteoric water line
Line 362: high d excess and high slope (8.1) indicate high humidity region
Line 381: Figure 8 is empty except 4 lines. Surface water and groundwater samples must appear as points with different markers, but not lines.
Line 382/384: This observation does not make sense and cannot be use as an evidence for interconnection.
Line 419: Q values have not been included in table 1.
Line 419-424: It would be beneficial to present the baseflow component of groundwater that feeds the rivers to justify if the variation in the flow rate could be because of groundwater contribution. If the groundwater level is far below the river bottom, the loss of water from the rivers will be expected. That is where groundwater flow map and cross section across the rivers is important.
Line 423: use appropriate superscript
Conlusion: needs some revision based on the suggested changes.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
In appropriate use of words such as "water cycle", "technology" etc. must be improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the suggestions for the changes, which are valuable to me. I have explained each of the points of your suggestion. And after revising the manuscript, I will upload it one by one. Because this is my first time writing a thesis, the time is a bit procrastinating. I apologize for the inconvenience caused to you by my lack of ability and experience.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMany thanks for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript of Liu Yi et al. titled “Interaction between Groundwater and Surface Water in the Qujiang River Basin China: Evidence from Chemical Isotope Measurements”. The research topic is suitable for the journal, and it appears that the research place is very interesting. However, the manuscript needs major revisions before it can be considered for publication in the journal. The main reasons for this decision are as follows.
(1) As we know, an abstract is a highly succinct section intended to convey the study's purpose, significance, research questions, methodology, and experimental results. The suggested revision of the abstract section is as follows:
Firstly, many thanks for introducing me to numerous fascinating locations in China (row number 13-17). However, I strongly suggest consolidating these sentences at the beginning of the abstract into a single sentence to introduce the research's purpose and significance in this paper.
Secondly, the experimental methods presented in this abstract are excessively verbose (row number 17-26). It is advisable to provide a concise summary of these methods and emphasize the key issues they address in one or two sentences.
Finally, it is suggested to rewrite the sentence "This study contribute to the investigation of hydrochemical variations in water cycle" to emphasize the significance of this study and the prospect of the future (row number: 40-41), rather than assisting us to write feedback on this manuscript.
(2) What is conveyed by this “Amidst global runoff decline ..., posing significant obstacles to continued growth” (row number: 46-49)? In other words, what continued growth is impeded by these issues?
(3) several formatting issues in this manuscript require modification, including the placement of references [1-5], number size and decimal places in Table 1, and the format of the references.
(4) The structure of the manuscript should be reorganized. I recommend you use the structure of a research paper. You should focus on the difference between "result" and "discussion". In the "4. result" section, you appear to present the outcomes of your analysis rather than the results derived from the original experimental data. The contents of this analysis should be placed in the "5. discussion" section.
(5) The English level (especially the logic) should be significantly improved in the text. For example, water scarcity typically does not drive urbanization. Rather, urbanization can contribute to water scarcity as a result of increased demand for water resources in densely populated areas (row number 47: “urbanization driven by ..., water scarcity, ...”). In addition, it should be stated as the upstream to the downstream distribution of D and 18O values, illustrating the variation in gradient for them along the river rather than indicating personal involvement in running from upstream to downstream (row number 356-357). It is important to ensure accurate and logical causality in the statement.
(6) Some discussion and description sentences are not sufficiently rigorous. For example, the conclusions in the discussion section are deduced solely based on personal judgment, which is not supported by existing literature or established theoretical foundations.
(7) The conclusion is not concise; rather, it resembles a discussion section.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English level (especially the logic) should be significantly improved in the text. For example, water scarcity typically does not drive urbanization. Rather, urbanization can contribute to water scarcity as a result of increased demand for water resources in densely populated areas (row number 47: “urbanization driven by ..., water scarcity, ...”). In addition, it should be stated as the upstream to the downstream distribution of D and 18O values, illustrating the variation in gradient for them along the river rather than indicating personal involvement in running from upstream to downstream (row number 356-357). It is important to ensure accurate and logical causality in the statement.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer，
Thank you for your suggestions and feedback. This is my revised content. Wishing you a pleasant life.Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript has some useful data that is useful to researchers in this field. The paper in my book is not ready for publication. It should be improved. The research heavily uses stable isotope data and yet the interpretation is weak. The following suggestions may be useful
(1) Lines 30-32 in the abstract is confsuing. It means the same thing when the conclusion is taken as a whole
(2) Line 35 in the abstract is not cleart. What is " quantitative relationship between ground and surface water"? What relationship and how is it quantitatively addressed?
(3) In Figues 5,7 and 8 there are some numbers on the sample points. What are they? It should be explained in the caption.
(4)Lines 229 and the following lines are not borne out by the data. The data points show large variations and the authors' generalization is not accurate.
(5) Line 284. What is the d excess for ground water?
(6) Line 295. Again the interpretation is not supported b the data
(7) For equation 5 and similar equations it is necessary to give the r value.
(8) Equation 5. The intercept is not explained sufficiently well. The argument given is that the source of precipitation is Pacific Ocean. That will not give a high deuterium excess. It is possible if the Mediterranean was the source.
(9) Line 323. What is meant by "steep slope and intercept of the local meteroic water? 8 .31is not steep.
(10) Line 343. Where are the slopes of SWL and GWL provided in this paragraph? This is best included in the Figure 9
(11) Line 356 in the conclusion section is excatly what the data shows and interpretation should be consistent with the data.
In sum a thorough revision will make the manuscript worthy of publication.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageOver all acceptable
Author Response
Dear Reviewer，
Thank you for your suggestions and feedback. This is my revised content. Wishing you a pleasant life.Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle: it is not presented well. I suggest: Interaction between Groundwater and Surface Water in the Qujiang River Basin china: evidence from chemical isotope measurements.
I noted that the authors did not take into consideration some of my comments that will help them to improve the quality of the work. What was the reason? No justification provided.
Line 17: International readers do not know where the Qujiang River Basin is located. I suggested to add “China”, but not done
Line 30-31, 219/220: Globally, in hydrochemistry, water facies is represented by dominant CATION-ANION. Not the other way round. The authors did not attend to the comment.
Line 116: the texts in the figures are not readable. Poor quality.
Line 177: please use superscript for atomic mass in equation 1.
Figure 3 and 4: it is good that the figures are included, but not readable. Poor quality.
Figure 5: is not readable. Poor quality.
Table 1. Absolutely I do not agree on Zero (0) records. They have to consult analytical chemist in China. In any analysis there is no Zero result. In that case, it is always recommended to present the detection limit of the instrument use. Therefore, the presentation of zero results is not acceptable.
Figure 6: not readable. Poor quality.
Figure 7: not readable. Poor quality.
Line 257-265: I suggested to consider the paper (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2018.07.009) that can help to improve the interpretation. The authors did not provide any explanation about the data points plotted outside the demarcated zone in Figure 7. The paper will help them to clarify those points.
Figure 10. very strange to see only regression lines without data plot. I already commented on this and the figure is not acceptable. See other similar publications in Water MDPI.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your suggestions and comments; they have been very helpful, and I would like to express my gratitude once again. I have made the necessary revisions based on your feedback. As for why the last chart displayed data points, I have also attached a PDF version for your reference.
I appreciate your assistance, and I wish you a pleasant day.
Please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have completed the rereview of your manuscript titled "Interaction between Groundwater and Surface Water in the Qujiang River Basin China: Evidence from Chemical Isotope Measurements", and I find it interesting with excellent potential for publication in Water. The authors have made major revisions following the reviewers’ comments, which have greatly improved the Ms. I believe the manuscript is suitable for publication with some minor revisions in English language. For example, the superscripts of the numbers, 106 in the abstract and the conclusion parts.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language is required. For example, the superscripts of the numbers, 106 in the abstract and the conclusion parts.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is now acceptable
Comments on the Quality of English Languageacceptable
