Estimation of temporal and spatial variations in groundwater recharge in unconfined sand aquifers using Scots pine inventories

Ala-aho, P.; Rossi, P. M.; Kløve, B.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-1961-2015

Articles | Volume 19, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-1961-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Special issue:

Groundwater resources and their ecosystem services: new methods...

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-1961-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 19, issue 4

Research article

|

23 Apr 2015

Research article |

| 23 Apr 2015

Estimation of temporal and spatial variations in groundwater recharge in unconfined sand aquifers using Scots pine inventories

P. Ala-aho, P. M. Rossi, and B. Kløve

Download

Final revised paper (published on 23 Apr 2015)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 10 Jul 2014)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C2721: 'Review comments', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Jul 2014
- AC C5358: 'Author response to Referee #1', Pertti Ala-aho, 28 Nov 2014
RC C4766: 'Reviewer 2', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Oct 2014
- AC C5359: 'Author response to Referee #2', Pertti Ala-aho, 28 Nov 2014
- AC C5745: 'Author response to Referee #2 detailed comments', Pertti Ala-aho, 18 Dec 2014
- AC C6472: 'Updated response to annotated PDF', Pertti Ala-aho, 13 Feb 2015

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (22 Dec 2014) by Christine Stumpp

AR by Pertti Ala-aho on behalf of the Authors (13 Feb 2015) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (23 Feb 2015) by Christine Stumpp

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (04 Mar 2015)

RR by Angelo Basile (07 Mar 2015)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Dear Editor, dear Authors

I really appreciate the efforts made by the Authors in fitting my and others requests.
It seems to me that the paper is really improved, it is now more coherent and it is easier to read and to follow.

I would like to ask the Authors to produce the last effort prior to publish the paper.

Two points, in my opinion, are still open.

The first is a technical point. It still was not clear to me the parameterization of the lichens layer. I already ask you an answer on this topic but I didn’t find any answer to this point.
In rows 186-188 of the new manuscript you stated “ The mean water retention capacity of the lichen samples was found to be 9.85 mm (standard deviation (SD) 2.71 mm) and approximations for these values were used in model parameterization (Table 2).”
You’ve expressed such result in mm, but in table 2 you’ve reported the porosity θL as %. The latter seems to me correct. The porosity is generally an a-dimensional parameter, and specifically is a-dimensional in the B&C equation.
I wonder that a confusion was made between the results of the water storage coming from the experiment (i.e. 9.85 mm) and the parameter you have to apply.
Please clarify this point.

The second point is more general and do not pertain only to this paper. I’m using the revision of this paper and the open-discussion as an opportunity to remark a crucial point.
In rows 113-114 of the new manuscript and in your answers you stated “Rokua is an unconfined, aquifer consisting of unconsolidated sandy sediments (from here on referred to as soil)”. In such a way any possible misunderstanding in the paper reading is avoided. Formally, everything is ok. The authors have answered to the question I posed in the first revision.
…BUT…
…a more general question arise…
I’ve not teaching you that the soil is something more complex of an ”unconsolidated sandy sediment”. I know that in your scientific community is often usual to call soil any porous material under earth surface. But, I think this is wrong and not correct, especially for a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary journal. I think that we have to produce many efforts to overcome this “cultural” problem that many scientific communities suffer (including soil scientist in general and me in particular). Interdisciplinarity is a powerful concept but sometimes…just a concept. We have to do any effort to translate it in real facts and not just use it as slogan or empty words. Specifically, the soil (that is a very complex – and hidden - resource) is neglected in too hydrology-related papers. But this complexity should be fuel for us to go on and try to manage it and not a wall to turn around.

This second point, obviously, necessitates my sign:

Sincerely yours

Angelo Basile
Soil hydrology and hydropedology
angelo.basile@cnr.it

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (13 Mar 2015) by Christine Stumpp

AR by Pertti Ala-aho on behalf of the Authors (19 Mar 2015) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (23 Mar 2015) by Christine Stumpp

AR by Pertti Ala-aho on behalf of the Authors (24 Mar 2015) Manuscript

Short summary

We present a novel simulation method for estimating spatially distributed and transient groundwater recharge in unconfined sandy aquifers. The approach uses field data for the most important parameters affecting groundwater recharge and accounts for parameter uncertainty. The results show that tree canopy cover is the most important factor in controlling groundwater recharge at our study area. Tree canopy is thinned by forestry, which may lead to a significant increase of groundwater recharge.