Methods for Characterizing Groundwater Resources with Sparse In Situ Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see attachment file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your careful and helpful review. See attached document with our response to your review comments/suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors develop and test a groundwater model that simulates drawdown in aquifers under conditions of limited data. The model was developed in the US state of Utah and field tested in Niger; the Utah data were quite complete allowing development and testing of the model under conditions of varying data availability.  The paper is well-written, although there are some editorial concerns; namely, in terms of referencing:

Lines 217, 221, 230, and 305 each contain the statement that "Reference source not found".  

Lines 407 and 498 refer to Evans et al. Please insert "[23]" after this text reference.

Lines 443-444, rephrase this to read "using published methods and tools [25,28]"

Line 373, there should be an apostrophe in "well's".

Line 422, "reasonably close" should be quantified/defined.

Line 432, insert "a" in the phrase "a better estimate".

Line 437, delete the "s" on "shows"

Line 449, "present" should be "presents"

Line 450, "that" should be "the"

Line 466, "shows" should be "show"

Line 489, "is" would probably be better stated as "being"

Line 512, please include a reference for the statement that "Another issue could be the well-documented "leakage"..."

Line 518, insert "a" in front of "gradual increase"

Line 529, delete the extra "a" at the end of the line

Line 534, a full stop after "analyzed" and an upper case "F" would read better

 

Author Response

Thank you for your review comments. See attached document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

A manuscript "Methods for Characterizing Groundwater Resources with sparse In-Situ Data” provide a possible determination of groundwater storage depletion calculation on the example of south Niger area. The manuscript is well written with appropriate number of references. The manuscript can be interesting for the readers of Hydrology; however, several weaknesses should be improved. I advise to consider before the publishing the manuscript:

·       Use SI units in the whole document, doesn’t matter about which locality are writing about

·         Subsection 1.2. Study Location and Background moved into the section Material and methods, in line with Utah locality description

·         Uniform the order of localities in the whole manuscript, once you started with Niger case study, next time with Utah case study. It is difficult to follow it.

·         Correct repetitive sequences of words, see lines 134, 152

·         Check figure references in the whole manuscript

·         I’m missing why any other method wasn’t used and an information if the method was applied with similar results in any other case study.

Author Response

Thank you for your review comments. See attached document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

I received an paper for review entitled "Methods for characterizing groundwater resources with sparse in-situ data" by Ren Nishimura, Norman L. Jones, Gustavious P. Williams, Daniel P. Ames, Bako Mamane, Jamila Begou. I read it with great interest. The discussed topic is extremely important, especially taking into account the studied basin with a large shortage of drinking water, including groundwater. I like the description of the thesis taken, which is specific, explaining everything. The case study was described in a very interesting way, taking into account all the most important characteristics. The figures are understandable and of good quality, mostly legible. The greatest value is the detailed and step-by-step description of the research methods undertaken. A very extensive literature review was also undertaken (53 items). I am glad that the authors did not forget to assess the accuracy of the research carried out. The paper is very valuable, interesting, well-thought-out and, in my opinion, a highlighting topic. I have only minor comments that may raise the value of the presented article:
1. In several places, "Error! Reference source not found." - lines 217, 221, 230, 305.
2. I think figures 5 a and b; 7 a and b have too small font describing vertical and horizontal axes.
3. I would also ask for the standardization of the list of literature (replacement of capital letters).

Author Response

Thank you for your careful and helpful review. See attached document with our response to your review comments/suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Nice study. No major comments. Few minor typos, etc.

My main comment is that there should be greater emphasis on the applicability of the technique. That is, this methodology is ideally suited to areas where there is a high density of wells, but few measurements, ideally spread over as broad a time period as possible. This should be re-iterated throughout the paper as I have indicated. This makes the methodology well-suited to understanding groundwater use in developing countries, especially where multiple shallow bores are used and regulatory constraints are poor. Thus, practical applications include the fact that a major monitoring campaign is not required. Rather, multiple trips, sampling just a few wells at a time over a long period can be more effective than a single monitoring campaign that only provides a snapshot of groundwater condition and therefore local users can be engaged to periodically sample groundwater depths and report to a central agency to provide a practicable data source for long-term management.

I feel this potential would be worth including in the discussion or conclusions.

Otherwise, a very worthwhile paper that should be published.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for doing such a careful review.

We note that you left a series of comments and suggested edits in the PDF version of the manuscript. We have responded to each of the these and included our reply to each response the attached PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf