Dear Authors,

It is clear from the reviewer's comments and my own assessment of the manuscript that this review is good and that the paper will be eventually published. However, as the authors already acknowledge in their responses to the reviewers, the reviews are extremely valuable as the referees have offered a large number of excellent comments that will help improve the contribution of the manuscript.
The author’s responses are very positive, and they clearly show that they plan to address most of the issues raised by the reviewers in a constructive way. It is also obvious that the authors have already been working on a large number of corrections and improvements to the manuscript. As the number of revisions is considerable large, I am recommending major revisions in line with the reviewer’s suggestions.

I look forwards to receiving the revised manuscript.

Dear Authors,
I agree with both referees that the new revised manuscript has been substantially improved. I believe that it offers a valuable review of recent studies on groundwater-dependent ecosystems.
Please consider All the helpful suggestions from both referees and in particular the concerns on section numbering. I agree that numbering of subsections in section 3 (or perhaps the choice of subtitles) is a bit confusing. All subsections in section 3 refer to the use of remote sensing, so either renumbering (as suggested by the reviewers) or slightly modifying the subtitles will certainly help to improve readability. The manuscript will be ready for publication after these very minor revisions.
Patricia Saco