Investigation of the Origin of Hueco Bolson and Mesilla Basin Aquifers (US and Mexico) with Isotopic Data Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I am not sure where is the aquifer? Please indicate the location of Fig.4 in the Fig. 1 with a mark. Please also mark the location of profile (Fig. 7) in the Fig. 4.

The quality of Fig. 7 should be improved. Explain the science of groundwater (and aquifer) with your data by using Fig. 7. Also mark your sample wells locations (with the depths) by using the figure. I suggest that move the Fig. 7 to Fig. 2 and the old Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 can be omitted. (No science important)

Author Response

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The dataset compiled is of high value however the data treatment should be deeply revised as it is not helping inr better understanding the hydrogeological functioning of the Hueco bolson and Mesilla basin. Most probably it depend to much of previous data interpretation but the reader has not read previous papers.

O18-2H and 3H should be fully re-interpreted all together once corrected for radioactive decrease for 3H.

It is not clear what is new in this paper as there are only 8 new samples and not visible in graphes

The paper presented is more the presentation of a set of data than isotope studies. Data interpretation is missing or not always correct.

It is recommended to revise the plan of the article and go deeper in data interpretation

Author Response

See attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a very exciting article especially because it extends the research of isotopes across the border into Mexico where Teeple (2017) was lacking results. The way all of the results from the three studies closely corresponds with each other is remarkable and really does tell a good story. Some of the major comments that I have pertaining to this article are listed below:

1) I think the methodology of using isotope data for interpretations needs to be elaborated on just a little bit more in the "Isotope Study" section of the article. What is the isotopic ratio of stable isotopes? Why are there differences in these stable isotopes found in water? How or why is tritium measured. Since tritium is unstable, how was it introduced into the water? Just a few sentences to explain the importance of isotopes to getting specific results.

2) The oxygen and hydrogen isotope results section needs some more clarification. The interpretation of the results sound good to me, but the way they are discussed needs to be cleared up and elaborated on in some cases. See comments in that section of the report on suggestions to help clarify the results.

All comments and suggested changes are documented in the attached PDF (water-1343132-peer-review-v2_comments.pdf).

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. It was an exciting read and I look forward to seeing it being published.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggest that the authors should draw a new figure for modifying the old one (fig. 7). That will not take a lot of time and will improve quality of this manuscript. For the readers that are not familiar with the local geology, conceptual profiles are very important to explain the aquifers and the groundwater path, recharge to discharge, in 3D. It is also very important that put the new data into those 3D pictures to explain the authors’ conclusions.

Author Response

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has been improved from its prevo=ious version. It present a compilation of existing data on the txo aquifers. It is not a niovel approach or deep data analyses but may be a usefull information for scientists or water managers working in this area

Author Response

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf