Groundwater Recharge Modeling under Water Diversion Engineering: A Case Study in Beijing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please find the comments in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1) Title: 'Northern China' is a little big for describing the study area.
2) Line 10: '..is proposed', I did not see new method in the paper.
3) Line 15: the difference of recharge and discharge?
4) Line 16: 'negative equilibrium', negative water balance is better.
5) Introduction section: this study is basically a surface-subsurface water exchange problem. I suggest that the authors provide a literature review on that.
6) Line 71: 'scales'?
7) '2.1 study region' and '2.2. Hydrogeological Conditions in the Study Area
' are inappropriate for the Methods section.
8) Line 114, 'prescribed flow boundaries'? In Figure2a, the east and south boundaries are prescribed head.
9) Line 118, the depth of groundwater table?
10) Line 151, it would be better to give the location of the total 27 observation wells in Figure 2a.
11) Figure 3 is not necessary.
12) Figure 4a, what parameter field is this? hydraulic conductivity?
13) In 2.4 Model Calibration and Validation, please provide validation results using stress periods from 2019 to 2023.
14) In Table 1, there are river leakage, agricultural irrigation and exploitation. How are these implemented in the model? The implementation of the river leakage is very important to the simulation results.
15) In 3.2, Figure 5 and 6 are not sufficient to describe the results. Providing more tables could be better.
16) Line 252-253, Water diversion project will definitely reduce the river discharge and river infiltration, so the point of this article should be to discuss the process of the surface and subsurface exchange, feedback and impact mechanism. And then give optimal plan for the project.
17) The language should be improved.
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Too much key information is missing from the hydrogeological characterization of the numerical model: 1.The simulated stratum does not show the spatial heterogeneity of aquifer and weakly permeable layer in the actual stratum; 2. The determination of boundary conditions lacks necessary basis; 3. The initial flow field of groundwater needs to be given; 4. Initial parameter partitions and parameter values need to be supplemented; 5. Source sink item distribution and series data need to be supplemented; 6. The Location of diversion engineering and the temporal variation of water diversion need to be supplemented. Other: 1. There are too many elementary mistakes in the writing, please refer to the comments in the PDF file for details. 2. The writing needs to be refined, unnecessary drawings can be deleted, and the common-sense introduction of numerical models needs to be simplified. There are many descriptions of redundancy in the current version.Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed all comments point by point and I think the current version can be published in the journal.
Reviewer 2 Report
I have no more questions
