Hydrological and Urban Analysis of Territories under High Water Stress: Nazas and Aguanaval Rivers, Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author:

Hello, it's my honor to review your manuscript. First of all, I agree with your contribution in this research, but I found some problems in the process of trial. I hope you can further explain or improve them. The manuscript “Hydric-rural cartography for improving rural contexts Nazas and Aguanaval river basins” addresses an interesting topic, which adhere to Land journal policies.

The work is useful, but it is necessary to create a different concept. The manuscript must include the chapter Methodology, Research Results and Discussion. It is not entirely clear in the manuscript what conclusions the authors reached. The abstract can be improved and should include more concrete results. The introduction should be expanded. There is a lack of literature that presents the problem on several levels (local, regional, global). The aims of the research paper are not clearly stated in the introduction. Please state the aims of the research paper in detail. Explain how this investigation differs from other similar investigations. The manuscript lacks comparison and discussion with similar studies by other researchers. The manuscript must contain a significantly larger number of references, which should correspond to the topic of the work.

The graphic appendices are good, but it is necessary to improve the readability of some of them (for example Figure 14). 2.1. Hydrological region 36 - Table 1. Arrange the Table 1. The table must not be displayed on two pages. Translate the unit of measurement hm3/ano into English. If high precision is not required, round the parameter values from the table to one decimal place. Almost empty pages should also be avoided (page 6). To write formulas, you should use the Equation option in Word.

The technical instructions for citing literature (e.g. abbreviations of journal names, bold year, italic name of journal…) should be followed.

Author Response

See the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find your work very interesting, the maps very well made and captivating, however, I am afraid at its current state your work is not suitable for publication. The structure should be revised significantly, many more references to international literature are needed, avoid repetitions and use a more coincise and clear language (a thorough revision of the English language is also necessary). 

Some (not exhaustive) suggestions as follow 

Title should include indication of geographical location, and so abstract and keywords

Introduction should be restructured first with reference to the context, even from a geographical point of view in relation to the region RH36, you start with the goal and finish with the goal, I find the Intro a bit repetitive and lack of references makes your points a bit weak. Why did you choose that study area? What are the known characteristics of this area ahead of this work? Climate? Precipitation? Population density? Land use? What are the gaps you want to fill in with your research in relation to that particular study area? Make sure you refer to the map when mentioning your study area in the Introduction.

I feel the very long literal quotations at page 5, 6, 8, 13, 21 unnecessary, very long and quite naifly used (with all due respect these are things that usually students do..). You need to rephrase them repeating those concepts with your own words.

I would reduce and even avoid scholastic general information that are probably known to readers of the journal (just as an example page 10 see the sentence “As Eizaguirre explains [1], geomorphology teaches us that certain geographical, bio- 195 tic, geological and anthropic factors trigger a series of constructive and destructive pro- 196 cesses, in constant dynamics”).

There is almost complete lack of reference to international literature on the themes you point out (see for example the relationship between land use, urbanisation and hydrological balance also in terms of hydrogeological risk).

The conclusion is ok but it needs to be linked more to the introduction

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend a thorough editing of the English by a mother tongue 

Author Response

See the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors begin, in the introduction part, with the main purpose of the research. The purpose, the objectives, should be presented in the final part of the introduction, after the theoretical foundation, on the bibliographic basis of the research approach

The maps must be modified. Insert their graphic scale and at least one spatial identification element must appear on each map (name of localities, waters, etc.). Indicate, on the maps, the orientation (direction N)     The structure needs a little revision. The introductory part must contain more information of a theoretical nature, derived from bibliographic works, which support the necessity of preparing such a study and identify similar researches with comparable results.   A new chapter must be introduced to highlight the analyzed study area, in the current structure of the research it is not understood or seen, concretely, based on a map, the territorial inclusion of the study area.   Introduce a new chapter that will highlight, succinctly, the approach methodology in the presented study. The methodology is clearly not evident in this structure.   Insert a chapter dedicated to the results and discussions, a chapter in which the results obtained in the study are discussed in relation to the problems solved, etc.    

 

Author Response

See the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

dear editor

The manuscript is sufficiently improved and can be published in Land.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments, we believe they were extremely helpful to improve our article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thanks for working on the comments, the manuscript has been considerably improved, however there are still some things that require some further intervention, particularly: 

- there are some mistakes in the references (for example nr 19 should be Dematteis but in the references it is another author and Dematteis is not event cited). Please make sure the references are correctly cited in text and at the end of the paper. 

- I think there is a problem with in-text citation of images (right now you get the "Error! Reference source not found" notice, see for example page 1)

- I am not convinced by the structure and I think there is some confusion overall. I don't think that nr 9 is a Results section, the Results are the maps you present, that section is more a Discussion section which should be incorporated into the next one, perhaps by creating a new Discussion and Conclusion section. In the last two sections the text is divided into several very short paragraphs which to me look not particularly pleasant to read. Maybe you can arrange your text into longer paragraphs like you do in earlier in the paper. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Change the sign for orientation (N), the minimal sign is not distinguished as a map orientation identifier

As I said in the first review, insert identifying elements on the maps, for example: names of rivers, names of important cities/localities for a better visualization and interpretation of the maps

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx