Ground-Penetrating Radar Detection of Hydrologic Connectivity in a Covered Karstic Setting
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The submitted manuscript investigates the subsurface characteristics of a "draw" and a series of geographically isolated wetlands using LiDAR, aerial imagery, and ground-penetrating radar. The main goal is to determine the hydrologic connectivity of a karst system covered by sand and clay thick up to 30 m.
Draw are defined by the authors as a "broad linear feature". However, they must better show the geological characteristics of such a supposed karst landscape. Is it a graben? Or a large channel? Other landforms may also determine such a configuration. Please, improve the description of "draw".
However, hydrology-1907126 has an apparent soundness of a Case report or Technical note, rather than an Article. I invite the authors to improve the quality of the manuscript and to put in a broad scientific context. Are there other works that use the same methodologies in karst settings similar to the one of Dougherty Plain?
Please, report the source and the use you made of LiDAR aerial imagery. What is their topography accuracy?
The scientific literature on the use of GPR in karst landscape is wide. GPR shows strengths and weaknesses. How did the authors deal with the interpretation of the GPR transects?
Minor comments
The name of the State (Georgia) where the study area is placed should be indicated both in Abstract and Introduction. In the manuscript, it appear only in Discussion.
Please, enter the geographic coordinates in Figure 1 to allow the reader to understand the location of the study area.
The sentence "These fissures align with the documented fracture pattern in the region" in the caption of Figure 3d, should be completed with References.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I have read with interest your paper on Hydrologic connectivity in a covered karstic setting. The manuscript deals with the interesting problem, however, I have a few comments.
Article presents results of remote sensing basing on Lidar and GPR techniques in a small karstic area. Paper has rather form of scientific note involving documentation of measurements and their interpretation in relation to underground forms which can modify groundwater migration.
In my opinion literature review is very poor. According to manuscript title and objective of the study there is no investigation linking features of studied imaginary with hydrogeological features of groundwaters monitored in a different way. There is no detailed information about application this matter in water circulation models. Paper lacks conclusions including synthesis and generalization.
What ‘geographically’ isolated wetlands exactly means? This term should be defined by authors precisely because geographical environment is a very wide term and involves almost everything. It should be explained what a criterion of isolation has been used (water alimentation, watershed divide course, anthropogenic impact etc)?
Part of manuscript containing data collection and results presentation is acceptable, however, the other parts need serious improvement and extension.
It is also worth considering submitting this paper after corrections to journal subjected more by hydrogeology, geology, or remote sensing because in present form not much fits to ‘Hydrology’.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The title "Hydrologic connectivity in a covered karstic setting" should be extended to clarify that GPR (groundpenetrating radar) was used for the hydrologic (more specificaly hydraulic) connectivity detection....
quality of Figures should be enahnced, e.g. the Jones Center boundaries (thin violet line) are not recognizable in Fig. 1, descriptive texts in figures are too small in Figs. 2 and 3 - in this case, these can be resized and perhaps divided into more figures with the same content
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been edited in response to my comments and is now ready for publication. I also appreciated the change of the title. If the Editors decide to label the paper as a "technical note," this should not be interpreted as a reduction in its importance. There is a growing need for research on specific and actual cases.
Reviewer 2 Report
There was not significant improvement of the manuscript in matter of literature review, methodology, conclusions, and synthesis. It still remains in form of scientific note or technical report.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
I accept manuscript in present form
