Groundwater Modeling with Process-Based and Data-Driven Approaches in the Context of Climate Change

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I found article “Groundwater modelling with process-based and data driven approaches in a contest of climate change” very interesting and important to publish. However, I have some comments which I make in the points below.

I am not a native English speaker, it is difficult for me to evaluate the quality of the English language in general. The authors should read the text of the manuscript very carefully once again.

In my opinion, an introduction part (lines 81-95 with Figure 1) should be moved to the beginning of Materials and Method section.

I can’t fully agree with statement included in lines 45-49. Peat bogs are a very important part of groundwater resources. They cannot be ignored when describing the impact of climate change on groundwater resources. Beautiful examples of publications are, for example: 10.1038/s41467-021-25619-y ; https://peerj.com/articles/13418/ ; 10.1038/s43247-022-00547-x

Line 58-59: In my opinion, not only this application leads to significant uncertainty of model results. See: DOI:10.1007/s11242-017-0886-0

Line 69-71. There are physically based approaches that can be mentioned here: Applied Flux Model (AHF) or Velocity Oriented Approach (VOA)

Figure 3 and Figure 9b is well-structured. But what is missed here is the division into the model layers. Please put there a piece of information about model layers.

Figure 6 in all graphs there are missing units. Figure 6d: please explain why there is only one measurement used for the validation process.

Figure 7: there are missing units in a-c.

 

Reading the entire text of the scientific article, I have the impression that they are 3 models results glued together in one article, but the whole thing is not particularly refined in terms of the same presentation. For example, the graphs for model calibration and verification are different for each model. Before the next submission of the article, I would like to ask you to standardize the presentation and description of these models in terms of their: conceptual models, the division into model layers, and the results of both calibration, verification, and water balance. For now, because of this diversity, the entire text is very hard to read.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents three interesting examples of groundwater models in each of which a different approach has been applied: (a) the process-based approach, (b) the data driven approach and (c) the combination of (a) and (b).

Remarks

(1) According to my opinion, the description of the data driven approach (see lines 62-71) gives the impression that for this approach no conceptual model is required. I don’t think this is right. That the authors do not actually represent this view becomes evident from the remarks in Section 2 (Materials and Methods), which are referred to all three approaches and in addition to, from the fact that in section 3.2.1 they present the conceptual model for their data driven model. Thus, I think, in the remarks in lines 62-71 the necessity of an even elementary conceptual model also for the data driven models should be incorporated.  

(2) In several places in the text the word “voice” is used, instead as I think, of the word “part” or “portion’ (see line 340, 353, 597). Is there any particular reason to use the word voice?

(3) Figure 3: The letters of the caption are difficult to read

(4) Equation 1: Explain the index k in the equation.

(5) Line 502: What does “s.l.” mean?

Figure 13: In all the parts of the Figure the letters are difficult to read.

Figure 14: What is the meaning of (A), (B), (C), (E), (F)?

Figure 15: The letters are difficult to read.

Line 566: “In Figure X …” What is this?

Figure 18: At which point has the upper time series in Figure 18 been calculated?  

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a scientific paper with reasonable structure, design, and writing. It is worth of publication in Water journal after minor revision. This paper provides different types of modelling using different types of approach applied on porous aquifer systems.

In 3.2.2Process based and data driven models implementation and calibration, SO₄ is selected as the representative for analysis, and the reasons for the selection need to be explained

Line 563, for the calibration period (2003-2012) and forecasting simulation period (2013-2042)，How did you divide it?

Line 566, “In figure X it is possible to observe~~~” figure X？

4. Discussion and conclusion. The discussion should go with the results and the conclusion alone

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.M. and M.D.; methodology, M.M., B.R; and A.S.; 660 validation, M.M., L.F., and A.S.; data curation, M.M., L.F., A.S. and M.D.; writing—original draft 661 preparation, M.M., M.D., L.F.; writing—review and editing, X.X.; visualization, M.M. G.M.; super-662 vision, M.D. and M.M.; project coordination, M.D. and M.M.  Can you abbreviate the last name?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1．The language in this paper needs being revised. There are some inaccuracies in the use of words in the text. For example, there are several places where the word "context" is written as "context", and the word "feeding component" is not very appropriate. In addition, some sentence structures are too complex.

2. It is recommended to add units to the coordinates in Figure 6. In addition, the fitting results of the Isola target continuous monitoring point are not very good, and the error is relatively large. It is recommended to explain why the model or parameters have not been adjusted to obtain better simulation results.

3. The aligned springs were not marked in Figure 9. In addition, the information obtained through one hydrodynamic station and one piezometer may not be enough to understand the hydrological and groundwater conditions of the whole Brenta aquifer system area.

4. The altitude of the pluviometry station is too high, and there may be a large gap between the meteorological data obtained and the plain area, so the accuracy of Formula 2 may also be affected.

5. Formula 2 involves two variables, R and HL, and HL has a greater impact on PL, but in 3.2.3 Forecasting simulation, when using Formula 2 to predict PL, only the change of R is considered, so the forecasting results in Figure 12 are questionable.

6. It is suggested to modify the expression of horizontal ordinate in Figure 13 (d) and Figure 17. In addition, please explain why the SO4 concentrations in Figure 13 (d) change so much?

7. In Figure 17, the calibration period is only 10 years, while the forecasting simulation period is 30 years, which is unreasonable. It is suggested to supplement the prediction model used, and analyze the characteristics and accuracy of rainfall prediction.

8. This paper mainly determines which model to use according to what information is available. It is suggested to discuss the applicability or limitations of various models.

9. There are too few references in recent years.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

1.        Ln 11-16: this sentence should be briefer. Authors are recommended to put more words on the results and findings rather than the background in the abstract. More information and taking home messages should be putted in the abstract. This part is significantly important as most readers understand your research.

2.        Please check your language. For example, “first” in Ln 17.

3.       The novelty of the research is not clear.

4.       Ln 26: this sentence is not accurate.

5.       The introduction should be reorganized. Please refer to some published high quality paper to find how to organize of introduction.

6.       The model shows not very well in the calibration and validation (Figure 6).

7.       How to grid for the model in figure 9? What are the boundaries?

8.       What are the Figure 13c,d used for?

9.       The discussion and conclusion should be divided.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I believe the manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Water

Author Response

thank you

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper mainly introduces the application of three models in three different regions, but these three applications are relatively independent. If the data is sufficient, can several models be used in the same place? Therefore, based on your calculation results, it is suggested that the applicability, limitations, accuracy and other characteristics of these three models be thoroughly analyzed in the discussion section, and their respective application conditions and factors affecting their accuracy are further summarized.

Author Response

please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The manuscript has been improved and can be considered for publication.

Author Response

thank you