Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Evaluation of Soil Hydraulic Properties in Northern and Central Tunisian Soils for Improvement of Hydrological Modelling

Land 2024, 13(3), 385; https://doi.org/10.3390/land13030385

by Asma Hmaied^1,2,†,‡

, Pascal Podwojewski³

, Ines Gharnouki^1,4,†

, Hanene Chaabane¹

and Claude Hammecker^2,*,†,‡

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2:

Gang Liu

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Land 2024, 13(3), 385; https://doi.org/10.3390/land13030385

Submission received: 6 February 2024 / Revised: 13 March 2024 / Accepted: 15 March 2024 / Published: 18 March 2024

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Hydro-Sedimentological Modeling for Simulating LULC)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

some doubts and suggestions have been noted in the attached marked copy.

I am confident that they will be amended during the review.

Best regards

The reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We are very grateful to reviewer #1 for all the valuable comments that will surely improve the quality of the manuscript.

All the suggestions and modifications recommendations inserted in the former version of manuscript by the reviewer have been commented and corrected directly in the new version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research tested three methods to evaluate soil hydraulic parameters with different kind of PTF; statistical (Rosetta), physically-based (Arya-Paris), physically based approach relying on an actual water infiltration experiment (Beerkan). However, the study still has logical issues that need further modification. Here are some suggestions for revision:

1. Lines 18-20, the application of hydrological models was not mentioned in the previous context.

2. Lines 56-58, there is a lack of relevant research on the study area chosen in this study by previous researchers, in other words, why this study area was chosen.

3. In the section of introduction, it is necessary to make clear what aspects have been fully revealed, what mechanisms have been explored, what controversies and ambiguities still exist, and what problems remain to be solved.

4. In the section of materials and methods, the authors need to make more introduction about the climatic characteristics of the study region or sampling area. In general, the location, topography, climate type (e.g., temperature, rainfall amount, and sunshine hours), soil and vegetation types of watershed need to be briefly introduced.

5. Figure 2 seems unnecessary, it is recommended to replace it with a table.

6. The abbreviations used in Figure 3 should be explained.

7. Lines 177-179, why was weather data only selected for the years 2004-2006?

8. Line 291, it is recommended to define the range of high rainfall intensity conditions.

9. Lines 303-304, previous studies have emphasized that different methods do not significantly affect soil hydraulic properties, so what is the innovation of this study?

Some little issues:

1. Line 24, check the format of the references.

2. In Section 2.8, it is suggested to specify the statistical software used.

3. Standardize the format of all P-values, or specify their range.

4. Please check the range of the vertical axes in Figure 9b and 9c.

Author Response

We are very grateful to reviewer #2 for the very valuable comments and suggested revisions, that have been taken into account in this new version of the manuscript, to improve its quality.

Following, the point to point responses :

Reviewer2

Authors:

Thank you for your pertinent comments, all your suggestions will be taken into consideration and be treated point by point,

Reviewer:

1. Lines 18-20, the application of hydrological models was not mentioned in the previous context.

Authors:

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer:

2. Lines 56-58, there is a lack of relevant research on the study area chosen in this study by previous researchers, in other words, why this study area was chosen.

Authors:

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer:

Authors:

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer:

Authors:

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer:

5. Figure 2 seems unnecessary, it is recommended to replace it with a table.

Authors:

Indeed, it was essential to mention this to shed light on the variability within the range of textural classes we were analyzing. Moreover, the size of the table would have been cumbersome. Nevertheless, the data are accessible upon request.

Reviewer:

6. The abbreviations used in Figure 3 should be explained.

Authors:

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer:

7. Lines 177-179, why was weather data only selected for the years 2004-2006?

Authors:

Weather data was only selected for the years 2004-2006, because it was an uninterrupted data set where rainfall data and especially ET0 were available everyday. Moreover this dataset is representative of the

weather pattern in this area. .

Reviewer:

8. Line 291, it is recommended to define the range of high rainfall intensity conditions.

Authors:

As mentioned in the manuscript, high intensity rainfall in mediterranean climate can reach 20 to 30 mm/h.

Reviewer:

9. Lines 303-304, previous studies have emphasized that different methods do not significantly affect soil hydraulic properties, so what is the innovation of this study?

Authors:

We removed the sentence about previous studies here to avoid any confusion. Indeed this point is discussed further in the text.

Reviewer:

Some little issues:

1. Line 24, check the format of the references.

Authors:

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer:

2. In Section 2.8, it is suggested to specify the statistical software used.

Authors:

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer:

3. Standardize the format of all P-values, or specify their range.

Authors:

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer:

4. Please check the range of the vertical axes in Figure 9b and 9c.

Authors:

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract section

The Abstract section presents a good textualization problem and rationale, however, the objective of the study is not clearly defined. The summary of the methodology is simple and does not clearly meet what is necessary to understand what was really done. None is cited about the final use of the estimated soil hydraulic properties/parameters and how was it done. Another missing point of the abstract are the main results and the main conclusion/contribution of the work. The keywords were well chosen.

Introduction section

Line 24 – The citation can be made with the author's last name, without the use of the term Ref.

Information between lines 44 and 48 (starting with “One can explore” and finishing with “simplicity”) is important as a link element, regarding the dealt problem, but it seems to be at the wrong place. It would be better to be placed before information regarding PTFs (line 28 – after “(…) the natural and anthropogenic processes predominantly at the surface layer [8,20–25].”

Line 54 – the excerpt “have been used mainly” must be suppressed.

The article's innovative approach was presented by “Nevertheless few of them address the problem of the final use of these parameters”, but it is way too simple. Authors must develop it more. Also, regarding this innovative approach, I can see this is not well linked to the drafted objective. I’d say the objective must be more developed, with more detailing, and outlining specific features of the presented article.

Material and Methods section

In 2.1, please present the Köppen climate classification for the study areas.

Line 83 – “such as loamy-sand, sandy and loamy-clay” must be suppressed.

The methodology description in 2.2 is poor. For example, readers only discover which PTFs were tested, by reading Figure 3. There is no detailing on the experimental procedures, that allow them to be replicated. Besides, all the acronyms in Figure 3 must be explained using the text or the figure caption. Figure 3 already cites VG-parameters but none was written before about the van Genuchten model, which will be very confusing for some readers.

What is the point of presenting the Brooks and Corey model, if it was not used, given that Figure 3 does not make clear the use of the Brooks and Corey model, and yet, this is presented in 2.3. When we make to 2.6, we can see that BC model was used, which makes Figure 3, at least, confusing, to not say wrong.

In general, 2.3 is a literature review rather than a material and methods description. The authors did not describe what was really done.

Regarding 2.6, why the Brooks and Corey model was used to estimate K(θ)? There is no explanation for it and Figure 3 does not show the use of BC model, only VG.

Line 171 – resolution should be replaced by solving.

By analyzing 2.7, it is clear that the cited “final use” of soil hydraulic properties/parameters, proposed to be analyzed by the study, is a simple scenario modeling and simulation, without any use of watershed soil water monitoring data. This fact is not clear in the Abstract section and is not clear within the outlined objective, present in the Introduction section and it should be, mostly because of 2.1 section “Study area”, that presents watersheds characteristics and features. Because of that, at first, we thought that some robust hydrological modeling would be evaluated but that isn’t the case. Soil was sampled from those locations and real rainfall and evaporation data were used, but the evaluated data comes only from simulations varying the SWRC parameters and Ksat.

Thinking about rainfall and evaporation data, where is located the OMERE observatory’s experimental station, inside the study area? What do the authors mean by significant rainfall events? Why original rainfall data series was not used? Within the text, the term evaporation is used, but Figure 4 refers to Et0, which is the acronym used worldwide for reference evapotranspiration, and there is a huge difference between them. What was really used as input data? Still, the evaporation rate was one of the analyzed results. If it is an input, it can’t be a result. Thus, of course, that is a difference between the evaporation rate model output and the atmospheric demand input. This must be cleared, mainly because there was a difference between these outputs depending on the soil hydraulic properties inputs, as shown in Figures 7, 8, and 9, and Table 2.

Section 2.8 is also poor. It is said that unsaturated hydraulic parameters obtained through the three methods (Beerkan, Arya-Paris, and Rosetta) were compared using the Friedman rank sum test, but this is not the article's objective. Actually, this is what the authors state, in the Introduction, that is most done, being considered something ordinary and so, they would propose something different. As I can see, the authors forgot to explain entirely the statistical procedures, regarding the response variables and also performed analysis, since not only the Friedman rank sum test was employed. All the used data analysis procedures must be described. For statistical analysis, what was the significance level to detect differences?

Results section

The same acronyms (Meα, Men, and MeKs) were used for all PTFs, which makes the text confusing.

For me, there is no point in using a scatter graph to compare Rosetta and Arya-Paris results with Beerkan ones, because the latter is not a standard (laboratory-based and field-based methods are standards), even incorporating experimental infiltration data, since it is absolutely indirect measurement. There is also no relevance of these scatter graphs without a correlation test.

Moreover, the data shown in Figures 6 and 9 are the same for Figures 5 and 8, respectively, and better because of the boxplot statistical meaning. Thus, Figures 5 and 8 should be deleted. Significant differences also could be presented using Figures 6 and 9, so there is also no point in presenting Tables 2 and 3 (all data can be summarized by Figures 6, 7, and 9).

For Table 2, why the simulation period was divided into quarters if no statistical comparison was made between them? Table 2 columns should be organized following the sequence Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4.

Discussion section

Figure 10 does not add anything to the discussion.

Came to my attention that nothing was discussed about the insensitivity of alpha for the Rosetta code.

There is no deep, nor practical discussion over the PTFs differences. Authors could have used other research results to figure out something.

What is stated between lines 274 and 277 is very important, but the authors did not bring discussion over it (the influence of problem scale when comparing SWRC and Ksat data derived from direct and indirect methods), since a dripper wetting front is different from sprinklers wetting front, that is different from rainfall generating infiltration and runoff in a watershed, that is different from an analysis of a 1-meter deep 1D soil profile, and so on. Thus, discussion focus should be given to small-scale problems and comparisons can be made to large-scale problems.

The discussion presented between lines 282 and 293 is interesting, but the authors did not link that to the reality of the watersheds (the named “study areas”) that which soil was sampled from. If there were some extreme rainfall events in the used series, different results should be expected. What other articles can contribute to this discussion? If this is a limitation, why not working with different rainfall series or discrete simulations, using rainfall determined for some return periods?

Conclusion section

In general, the conclusions are repetitions of what was presented in the results and discussion sections. Authors must focus on responding to the objectives of the work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text needs professional English language editing.

Author Response

We would like to thank reviewer#3 for his thorough revision and for all the valuable comments and suggestions presented in his report. We took then into account in the new version of the manuscript and try to answer hereafter to all the points raised by the reviewer.

Reviewer3:

Abstract section

Authors:

Thank you for your pertinent comments, all your suggestions will be taken into consideration and be treated point by point,

Reviewer:

Introduction section

Line 24 – The citation can be made with the author's last name, without the use of the term Ref.

Authors:

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer:

Line 54 – the excerpt “have been used mainly” must be suppressed.

Authors:

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer:

Authors:

In addition to the aforementioned points, this study introduces two innovative aspects:

Firstly, it employs methods of different conceptual approaches: a statistical method with Rosetta, a physically based approach with Arya and Paris, and a hybrid method combining physical principles and experimental data with BEST.

Secondly, it pioneers this type of analysis in Tunisia, shedding light on the future utilization of large-scale models by outlining the precision requirements and the corresponding efforts needed for determining hydraulic parameters.

Reviewer:

Material and Methods section

In 2.1, please present the Köppen climate classification for the study areas.

Authors:

It has been modified in the manuscript. The climate type corresponding to Köppen classification is Csa.

Reviewer:

Line 83 – “such as loamy-sand, sandy and loamy-clay” must be suppressed.

Authors:

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer:

Authors:

It has been modified in the manuscript. The PTFs that have been used are now mentioned earlier in the text. And more details about the experimental procedures are now presented in the manuscript.

Reviewer:

In general, 2.3 is a literature review rather than a material and methods description. The authors did not describe what was really done.

Authors:

It has been modified in the manuscript. Brooks and Corey model is used in BEST method to derive the K(θ) relationship of each soil type, and especially to derive Ks which will be used for van Genuchten function in Hydrus-1D.

Reviewer:

Regarding 2.6, why the Brooks and Corey model was used to estimate K(θ)? There is no explanation for it and Figure 3 does not show the use of BC model, only VG.

Authors:

As stated previously, the Brooks and Corey models was mentioned because it is used in the BEST model to evaluate K(θ).

Reviewer:

Line 171 – resolution should be replaced by solving.

Authors:

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer:

Authors:

Exactly, the reviewer points an important point that has been has been modified in the manuscript to avoid any confusion.

Reviewer:

Thinking about rainfall and evaporation data, where is located the OMERE observatory’s experimental station, inside the study area?

Authors:

Indeed the OMERE observatory is located inside the study area, as stated more precisely in the manuscript

Reviewer:

What do the authors mean by significant rainfall events?

Authors:

The times series that has been selected (that provides an uninterrupted set of data for both the rainfall and ET0) is representative of the general rainfall pattern in this area. It was modified in manuscript to clarify this point

Reviewer:

Why original rainfall data series was not used?

Authors:

Indeed, original rainfall data series collected in the OMERE observatory’s experimental station were used as input data for HYDRUS-1D

Reviewer:

Within the text, the term evaporation is used, but Figure 4 refers to Et0, which is the acronym used worldwide for reference evapotranspiration, and there is a huge difference between them. What was really used as input data? Still, the evaporation rate was one of the analyzed results. If it is an input, it can’t be a result. Thus, of course, that is a difference between the evaporation rate model output and the atmospheric demand input. This must be cleared, mainly because there was a difference between these outputs depending on the soil hydraulic properties inputs, as shown in Figures 7, 8, and 9, and Table 2.

Authors:

It has been modified in the manuscript, in order to void any confusion between ET0 that is an input data for HYDRUS-1D. On the other hand “evaporation” is the computed soil evaporation with HYDUS -1D (output), depending on the soil water stock and capillary rise.

Reviewer:

Authors:

It is a partial result, as the output of HYDRUS-1D were also compared according to the same statistical procedure.

Reviewer:

Actually, this is what the authors state, in the Introduction, that is most done, being considered something ordinary and so, they would propose something different. As I can see, the authors forgot to explain entirely the statistical procedures, regarding the response variables and also performed analysis, since not only the Friedman rank sum test was employed. All the used data analysis procedures must be described.

Authors:

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer:

For statistical analysis, what was the significance level to detect differences?

Authors:

p-values less than 0.05 was the significant level to detect differences.

Reviewer:

Results section

The same acronyms (Meα, Men, and MeKs) were used for all PTFs, which makes the text confusing.

Authors:

The acronym Me refers to a generic notation for median It was the same variable treated by the three different methods, changing the acronyms is not really appreciated. I think that by mentioning the method used after each acronym is already clear enough.

Reviewer:

Authors:

Indeed the scatter plot are redundant and where therefore suppressed. It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer:

For Table 2, why the simulation period was divided into quarters if no statistical comparison was made between them? Table 2 columns should be organized following the sequence Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4.

Authors:

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer:

Discussion section

Figure 10 does not add anything to the discussion.

Authors:

Figure 10 serves to clearly demonstrate the variations in retention curves derived from the three distinct models, even though they all utilize the same Particle Size Distribution (PSD). This comparison highlights the unique characteristics and outcomes of each model.

Reviewer:

Came to my attention that nothing was discussed about the insensitivity of alpha for the Rosetta code.

There is no deep, nor practical discussion over the PTFs differences. Authors could have used other research results to figure out something.

Authors:

This point is very important indeed, and was discussed in manuscript. This result clearly highlights a singularity of Rosetta model

Reviewer:

Authors:

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer:

Authors:

From our knowledge the challenges posed by the utilization of daily rainfall data in Mediterranean regions have not yet been comprehensively addressed or highlighted in existing literature. It seems to be a serious limitation that can be worked around by using a higher frequency for the rainfall and or as suggested by using return period values to simulate rainfall patterns. These two solutions will be explored on further studies.

Reviewer:

Conclusion section

In general, the conclusions are repetitions of what was presented in the results and discussion sections. Authors must focus on responding to the objectives of the work.

Authors:

Indeed the conclusion repeated the former findings exposed in results and discussion section. However elements responding to the objectives of the the work have been introduced into the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the authors have revised the manuscript in accordance with the suggestions but some unresolved issues, old or new, are still present in the present version of the paper. I suggest Authors to address them appropriately. Below I listed some open questions.

Best regards

Review report

R27-29: to which approximation are the authors referring? Moreover, what is the role of soil sorptivity in the surface runoff process? Please, clarify.

R29-30: After having argued on the importance of hydraulic conductivity, Authors continue with the sentence... “Therefore the soil water retention properties relating the water pressure head h to the volumetric water content θ(h)”. This period is quite confusing: please rephrase appropriately.

R34-35: what factors? Please, specify.

R35: “These factors operate with varying intensities across different scales”. It is not advisable to postpone reading the cited papers to delve deeper into the meaning of the reported sentence. Please clarify.

R56: “Two areas have….”. This should be a new section

R66: What functions?

R145: Please, delete “unsaturated”. Since the "hydraulic properties" are also determined by the following methods, please change the title accordingly

R216: hydraulic conductivity…(add) functions

R220: some information on the “additional fitting procedure” should be provided.

Author Response

Response to reviewer#1

Reviewer:

Best regards

Authors:

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. They will be taken into consideration and answered point by point hereafter.

Reviewer:

R27-29: to which approximation are the authors referring? Moreover, what is the role of soil sorptivity in the surface runoff process? Please, clarify.

Authors :

The mention of the approximation has been clarified in the manuscript. Additionally, the role of sorptivity has been emphasized instead of merely mentioning the influence of capillary pressure. Recent literature discussing sorptivity has been incorporated into the manuscript to underscore its significance in the initial stage of infiltration.

Reviewer :

Authors :

The initial paragraph has been revised to clarify that while hydraulic conductivity is crucial, it's essential to consider sorptivity, capillarity, and soil water retention properties to accurately quantify water infiltration, especially during the initial stage in dry soil. These factors play a significant role in understanding how water moves through the soil profile.

Reviewer :

R34-35: what factors? Please, specify.

Authors :

The different factors affecting hydraulic properties are listed in the new version of the manuscript. They comprise Soil texture, Soil structure, Organic matter content, Hydrophobicity and Soil compaction

Reviewer :

Authors :

We wanted to state that the intricate interplay among the various parameters influencing soil hydraulic conductivity, as discussed earlier, leads to its spatial variability.

It has been adde to the manuscript.

Reviewer :

R56: “Two areas have….”. This should be a new section

Authors:

A new section was created at this point in the manuscript.

Reviewer :

R66: What functions?

Authors :

We have specifically addressed pedotransfer functions (PTFs) in this context. This clarification has been made in the manuscript to avoid any ambiguity.

Reviewer :

R145: Please, delete “unsaturated”. Since the "hydraulic properties" are also determined by the following methods, please change the title accordingly

Authors :

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer :

R216: hydraulic conductivity…(add) functions

Authors :

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer :

R220: some information on the “additional fitting procedure” should be provided.

Authors :

Extra information about the fitting procedure has been added in the manuscript. The fitting was processed with light R script:

rm(list=ls()) #remove all the data and variables and path and ...

graphics.off() # remove all the graphs/plots

# --read data file ---

setwd("/Users/claude/nextcloud/BEST_Version_002/Result")

R=read.table('paramVGB.txt',sep=',',colClasses = "character")

f1=R[,1]

nbl=dim(R)[1]

# -- initialise matrix --

h=matrix(100,1)

theta=matrix(100,1)

RES =matrix(c(0.0),nbl,7)

# -- Start Calculation --

for(k in 1:nbl){

R1=read.table(f1[k],sep=';',colClasses = "character") # read BEST output files

alpha=-1/(as.numeric(R1[7,2])/10) # -hg (mm) -> paramètre alpha VG Burdine (cm-1)

n=as.numeric(R1[9,2]) # paramètre VG n Burdine

S=as.numeric(R1[14,2])/1000 # S (mm.s-1/2) -> S (m.s-1/2)

Ks = as.numeric(R1[8,2])/1000 # Ks(mm/s) -> Ks (m/s)

for(i in 1:100){

h[i] = 0.1*1.2^i

theta[i] = (1+(alpha*h[i])^n)^(-(1-2/n))

}

mualem <- nls(theta ~ (1+(a*h)^b)^(-(1-1/b)), start = list(a = alpha, b = n))

MUL=as.numeric(coefficients(mualem))

RES[k,1]=R1[1,2]

RES[k,2]=MUL[1]

RES[k,3]=MUL[2]

RES[k,4]=Ks

RES[k,5]=S

RES[k,6]=alpha

RES[k,7]=n

}

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Author Response

no corrections were required by Reviewer #2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, please address these minor amendments:

Figure 1 must show the OMERE observatory’s experimental station location.

Line 138 – The “ET0” acronym must be explained before its use.

Line 219 – The method, as outlined by Lassabatere et al. [38]

Line 235 - Kamech.

Fig. 4 caption was not corrected yet. It still shows “evaporation” instead of evapotranspiration or even ET0.

As I can see, it is not difficult for authors to change Meα, Men, and MeKs into Meα-B, Men-B, and MeKs-B; Meα-AP, Men-AP, and MeKs-AP; Meα-R, Men-R, and MeKs-R. This will make the text easier to read. Please, change it.

The Table 2 caption still does not present what are the analyzed variables. The periods division (quarters) must be indicated in 2.9.

Since the authors consider that Fig.8 is a valuable asset, some points need attention. Fig. 8 is a result so it should be presented in section 3, right after Table 1. The differences between SWRC must be described in 3 and used as discussion support in section 4. Also, the caption BEST must be used, instead of Beerkan to maintain the standard. Both the numerator and denominator of Equation 2 (Se - effective water content) are wrong. The denominator is inverted – it is θ_s- θ_R and the numerator is θ- θ_R.If the calculations were made using the current form of Eq. 2, results should be complementary to those presented in Fig. 8 Y-axis so, the values of Se in Fig. 8 are right, but Eq. 2 is wrong. Another important detail in Fig. 8 is the Se values when h equals zero, for BEST – water content values are not θ_S and they should be. Why did it happen? How does it reflect on alpha values and the simulation itself?

Please, state the work limitations in the first paragraph of the conclusion and suggestions for future works at the last one.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor mistakes were detected.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer#3

Dear authors, please address these minor amendments

Authors:

We are very grateful for your valuable comments and your suggestions. They will be taken into consideration and answered point by point hereafter.

Reviewer :

Figure 1 must show the OMERE observatory’s experimental station location.

Authors :

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer :

Line 138 – The “ET0” acronym must be explained before its use.

Authors :

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer :

Line 219 – The method, as outlined by Lassabatere et al. [38]

Authors :

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer :

Line 235 - Kamech.

Authors :

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer :

Fig. 4 caption was not corrected yet. It still shows “evaporation” instead of evapotranspiration or even ET0.

Authors :

It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer :

Authors :

It has been modified in the manuscript with clear subscripts.

Reviewer :

The Table 2 caption still does not present what are the analyzed variables. The periods division (quarters) must be indicated in 2.9.

Authors :

According to the suggestion, the period divisions have been indicated in section 2.8 of the manuscript

Reviewer :

Authors :

Indeed, the figure has been moved to the result section where it is more coherent It has been modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer :

Both the numerator and denominator of Equation 2 (Se - effective water content) are wrong. The denominator is inverted – it is θs - θR and the numerator is θ - θR. If the calculations were made using the current form of Eq. 2, results should be complementary to those presented in Fig. 8 Y-axis so, the values of Se in Fig. 8 are right, but Eq. 2 is wrong. Another important detail in Fig. 8 is the Se values when h equals zero, for BEST – water content values are not θS and they should be. Why did it happen? How does it reflect on alpha values and the simulation itself?

Authors :

We are very grateful for this though reviewing. Indeed the equation was wrong and it has been corrected in the manuscript.

The x-axis of figure presented in the previous version started at h=1, therefore for some models like BEST effective saturation (S_e) didn’t reach unity at the beginning of the graphic. To avoid any confusion we changed the lower limit of the graphic so that Se = 1 for all models.

Reviewer :

Please, state the work limitations in the first paragraph of the conclusion and suggestions for future works at the last one.

Authors :

The text has been reorganised accordingly in the manuscript.

Article Menu

Evaluation of Soil Hydraulic Properties in Northern and Central Tunisian Soils for Improvement of Hydrological Modelling

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI