The Effect of Horizontal Specific Temperature on the Flow Systems of the Transdanubian Mountains (Hungary)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The study has been considerably improved from the first version. Still, it could be strengthened in several points. The comments below are meant to be positive, and I urge the authors to address as much as possible these comments, as they have a nice work that deserves to be published. I suggest minor revisions, mainly in the Introduction.

 

INTRODUCTION

The Introduction section is disorganized. Please discuss the main findings and background information about the subject and study area. Then present the study's novelty, i.e., what is new that deserves to be investigated (which scientific gap will be addressed). After, describe briefly the study area and the reasons it was chosen.

 

GEOLOGICAL AND HYDROGEOLOGICAL SETTINGS

Page 3 – “The mountains are of fault structure and they are built up of horsts. It is constituted by blocks of fault structure.” This is awkward. Please, rewrite it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have detected several flaws and typos. An English review by a native speaker would significantly improve the study.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

thank you for your work.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The manuscript is clearly presented, well written and illustrated. 

The study explains the development of various flow types of the Transdanubian Mountains, using the subsurface temperature field to show how the groundwater flow is driven by topography and geology.

The originality of the article is that a hydrogeological conceptual site model has been defined with data from specialized literature supplemented with temperature data resulting from many drillings, which are more than sufficient for the proposed analysis.

The article is worth publishing because it contains information useful to the readers of this journal.

I congratulate the authors for the clarity of the presentation of a complex analysis, thus facilitating the understanding of the article and I agree with the publication in this form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

 

thank you for your useful remarks. Mainly regarding novelty, I corrected the manuscript.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject of interest of this paper is the flow systems of the Transdanubian Mountains in Hungary and the reasons for their development. The problematic is interesting, but the manuscript has serious presentational issues. It does not have a form of scientific paper. Instead of a scientific approach, it describes the problematic of study area in an encyclopedic manner. The introduction section is practically omitted. The main aim of the work is not highlighted. The methodological contribution does not exist, or it is unclear. The entire paper including references is concentrated on local hydrology. The study is not placed in a broader context. The current state of the research field is not reviewed, so the contribution is unclear. It seems that the entire investigation is based on the usage of existing geoisotherm maps, where the origin and previous applications of these maps are not elaborated. Generally, the results and findings should be interpreted in perspective of previous studies, and they should be discussed in the broadest context possible, more international preferably.

Reviewer 2 Report

Review for Hydrology

The study described the flow systems in the Transdanubian Mountains, a karstic area in Hungary. It presents the local geology, the main fluid flow pathways, and their relationship with the karst system. The topic of study should be of great interest to the Hydrology audience. However, the manuscript fails to address the main issue adequately. I present below the significant points of concern. I suggest the REJECTION of the manuscript, giving the authors enough time to address the points below and significantly improve the study.

 

MAJOR PROBLEMS

The study presents many previous (already published) maps and cross-sections rather than new data; the reader would expect the opposite. The new data the study provided are temperatures and hydrostatic pressure. This is the new contribution of the study and should be clearly stated in Title, Abstract and Introduction. The authors have missed the opportunity to use previous data, add to their new information, and provide a new model for the fluid flow in the study area.

 

 

ABSTRACT

The first sentence of the Abstract and the Introduction are the same. The abstract must stand alone to inform the reader. Therefore, it must be complete. The present abstract is too short and should present the methods used and expand the results to inform the study’s content fully.

 

1.    INTRODUCTION

This section is also too short. It lacks the following vital parts: (a) a short review of the subject that leads to a scientific gap, which explains to paper's novelty; (b) the main objective of the study; (c) why the authors choose the Transdanubian Mountains to perform the investigation (what are the special geologic or karstic features of the region that deserves this study?).

 

The second sentence of the Introduction is too vague to be meaningful, and it should be expanded to clarify what information the authors want to convey.

 

The definition of hypogene karst after [1] and other studies by the same author is significantly more comprehensive than the one presented in the section.

 

What does “hypogene section” mean? Please clarfy.

 

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MOUNTAINS

I suggest GEOLOGICAL AND HYDROLOGICAL SETTING

 

 “It is constituted by blocks of fault structure” – Do you mean the region is composed of faulted blocks? Please clarify.

 

Figure 1 – Please be aware that the international reader outside Europe could not be familiar with the local geography. Therefore, I suggest an inset with a regional map of Europe with the location of Hungary and a map of Hungary with the study area location. Merge the text of the Legend with the one above in Fig. 1.

 

Please, provide latitude-longitude coordinates for all maps.

 

Figure 2 – The map presents an area larger than the one in Fig. 1. Therefore, I strongly suggest that Map 2 should be presented before Map 1. The map of detail (1) must be located on the regional map (2). This will make the geology of the study area easier to understand.

 

Figure 3 – The cross-section must be located on the previous maps and have a horizontal scale.

 

The international reader not familiar with the Geology of Hungary needs the age and main types of rocks for each unit. Please, make sure this is presented on the legend.

 

Page 4 – “These beds are silica, clay, clayey limestone, marl, calcareous marl, abrasion pebble, and coal measures [15].” The text mix minerals and rocks. Please rewrite.

 

Page 4 – “The uniformly developed karstwater of the mountains (Fig. 4) mainly developed in the main dolomite and preceding karstwater extractions,…” This sentence is not clear. Please rewrite it.

 

Figure 4 – It lacks lati-long coordinates. This figure must be located on the previous maps.

 

Figures 5, 6 and 7 (and possibly 8) – These cross-sections must be located on the previous maps. I suggest merging these figures into one model to show the fluid flow and its relationship with the local geology (falts and geological units). This new figure could be the model presented in the Results or Discussion section.

 

The authors may have exaggerated the number of illustrations already presented by previous studies about fluid flow in the region. They may write a critical review and summarize these ideas in one figure.

 

3. METHODS

Tables 1 and 2 are results and should be moved, with the respective description, to section 4.

 

Table 1 – I suspect that commas should be replaced with points in the numbers provided in this table.

 

4. RESULTS

This important section accounts for a very small part of the manuscript. The reader would be left with the impression that too little has been done in the present study.

 

Why not compile all the previous information from the bibliography and, based on the new data collected, provide a new map and coss-section that summarizes the study?

 

5. Discussion

Figures 12 and 13 must provide horizontal and vertical scales. These figures must also be located on the previous maps, even if they are conceptual models.

 

 

I urge the authors to address as many of the comments above as possible, as they have a potentially fine paper.