Hydrogeophysical Evaluation of the Karst Aquifer near the Western Edge of the Ring of Cenotes, Yucatán Peninsula

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I was contacted to review the manuscript “Hydrogeophysical evaluation of the karst aquifer near the western edge of the Ring of Cenotes, Yucatan Peninsula” by Jorge Adrian Perara-Gurgos et al.. It’s better the authors addresed the following quesitons before considering further for publications in Water.

11.     L139-145. First of all, there is no need to perform modeling avaraging analysis. The algorithm behind these three software is the same. Just different companies create their own verson. Please only use one set of your results. Secondly, it’s better to invert all the data using the same software, and more improtantly assign simliar key inversion parameter. Otherwise, you will create difference from the beginning.

22.     Why the resistivity is so low? For example, the smallest resistivity is only 15 ohm.m in Figure3, which means the resistivity of groundwater is around 5 ohm.m (L349). m based on the informaiton you provided. I doubt the concluion you made about sea water intrusion. I think there is sea water intrusion, but not searious. Is the groundwater at 5 ohm.m used for drinking?

You can not make your conclusion based only on two ERT lines which are far away from the coast.

33.     In Figure 6b, why the contour lines of groundwater is not smooth? Moreover, there is no need to show so many coutour lines in the figure. It’s a quite busy figure.

Moreover, the density of wells or cenotes is not even. It’s higly concentrated.

44.     What are the ground conditions when you were doing ERT survey, soil, cement, asphalt? These conditions will have influence on the contact resistance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments on this part.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well structured and the figures of good resolution, but I suggest some refinements that could improve the manuscript.

Firstly, the introduction is too poor: only nine references are given, five of which relate to the study area. It is important to introduce the focus, the purpose of the study, potential limitations and findings of other researchers in the investigated field, the state of the art; also consider writing how your research is scientifically of interest, etc. Authors may also discuss limitations in calculating piezometry in coastal aquifers due to the presence of salt water and thus a variable density system. The importance of such techniques in the characterization of karst aquifer and their management.

With regard to Figures 1 and 2, I recommend inserting a box in Figure 1 with the study area with USA and Mexico as in Figure 2. Improve the legend by adding the description of the geological formations. For example, in line 58 the authors mention the Carillo Puerto formation, but it is impossible to recognise this formation from figure 2.

Figure 2b also mentions CNA - UNAM, Eugene Perry etc. What are they? maybe I missed them, but please, for better readability, it is important to show in the figures what the authors explain in the manuscript.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the comments in my previous review.  I do not have major objection to the manuscript.

I still disagree with the authors by presenting the results from three different software platforms. All three are from gradient based inversion algorithms and with Tikhonov regulation. All are popular and used by many researchers. There should not be evident differences. The default settings are different with the three platform. Therefore, the inverted results will be different in details. However, you will draw the same conclusion rather than different conclusions.

Author Response

Comments 1:  The authors have addressed the comments in my previous review.  I do not have major objection to the manuscript.

I still disagree with the authors by presenting the results from three different software platforms. All three are from gradient based inversion algorithms and with Tikhonov regulation. All are popular and used by many researchers. There should not be evident differences. The default settings are different with the three platform. Therefore, the inverted results will be different in details. However, you will draw the same conclusion rather than different conclusions.

Response 1:  Thank you for the observations. Only resistivity sections using EarthImager software have been included in the body of the manuscript.  The introduction and the sections where the inversion methodology and inversion results of the software are presented have also been slightly modified. The first appendix has also been modified.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is acceptable in its present form. All suggestions have been taken into account.

Author Response

Comments 1: The paper is acceptable in its present form. All suggestions have been taken into account.

Response 1: We greatly appreciate the suggestions and corrections to improve the manuscript.
We have slightly modified the introduction, and the sections where the numerical inversion methodology and its results are presented, to make the manuscript clearer.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No more issues. Accepted.