the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A hydrological framework for persistent river pools
- 1School of Earth Sciences, University of Western Australia, Crawley WA 6009 Australia
- 2College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA 5042, Australia
- 3Rio Tinto Iron Ore, Perth, WA 6000 Australia
- 1School of Earth Sciences, University of Western Australia, Crawley WA 6009 Australia
- 2College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA 5042, Australia
- 3Rio Tinto Iron Ore, Perth, WA 6000 Australia
Abstract. Persistent surface water pools along non-perennial rivers represent an important water resource for plants, animals, and humans. While ecological studies of these features are not uncommon, these are rarely accompanied by a rigorous examination of the hydrological and hydrogeological characteristics that create or support the pools. Here we present an overarching framework for understanding the hydrology of persistent pools. We identified perched water, alluvial through flow and groundwater discharge as mechanisms that control the persistence of pools along river channels. Groundwater discharge is further categorized into that controlled by a geological contact or barrier (not previously described in the literature), and discharge controlled by topography. Emphasis is put on clearly defining through-flow pools and the different drivers of groundwater discharge, as this is lacking in the literature. A suite of diagnostic tools (including geological mapping, hydraulic data and hydrochemical surveys) is generally required to identify the mechanism(s) supporting persistent pools. Water fluxes to pools supported by through-flow alluvial and bedrock aquifers can vary seasonally and resolving these inputs is generally non-trivial. This framework allows the evaluation of the susceptibility of persistent pools along river channels to changes in climate or groundwater withdrawals. Finally, we present three case studies from the Hamersley Basin of north-western Australia to demonstrate how the available diagnostic tools can be applied within the proposed framework.
Sarah A. Bourke et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CC1: 'Comment on hess-2021-461', Leannah Sies, 01 Nov 2021
This review was prepared as part of graduate program Earth & Environment (course Integrated Topics in Earth & Environment) at Wageningen University, and has been produced under supervision of dr Ryan Teuling. The review has been posted because of its potential usefulness to the authors and editor. Although it has the format of a regular review as was requested by the course, this review was not solicited by the journal, and should be seen as a regular comment. We leave it up to the author’s and editor which points will be addressed.
Â
- AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Sarah Bourke, 14 Jan 2022
-
AC4: 'Reply on CC1', Sarah Bourke, 04 Mar 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://hess.copernicus.org/preprints/hess-2021-461/hess-2021-461-AC4-supplement.pdf
-
CC2: 'Comment on hess-2021-461', Jasmijn Benschop, 02 Nov 2021
This review was prepared as part of graduate program Earth & Environment (course Integrated Topics in Earth & Environment) at Wageningen University, and has been produced under supervision of dr Ryan Teuling. The review has been posted because of its potential usefulness to the authors and editor. Although it has the format of a regular review as was requested by the course, this review was not solicited by the journal, and should be seen as a regular comment. We leave it up to the author’s and editor which points will be addressed.
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Sarah Bourke, 14 Jan 2022
This review was prepared as part of graduate program Earth & Environment (course Integrated Topics in Earth & Environment) at Wageningen University, and has been produced under supervision of dr Ryan Teuling. The review has been posted because of its potential usefulness to the authors and editor. Although it has the format of a regular review as was requested by the course, this review was not solicited by the journal, and should be seen as a regular comment. We leave it up to the author’s and editor which points will be addressed.
-
AC5: 'Reply on CC2', Sarah Bourke, 04 Mar 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://hess.copernicus.org/preprints/hess-2021-461/hess-2021-461-AC5-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Sarah Bourke, 14 Jan 2022
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2021-461', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Nov 2021
The manuscript entitled 'A hydrological framework for persistent river pools' by Sarah A. Bourke et al., propose a paper that describes a framework for characterizing the hydrology of semi-permanent river pools, as well as some examples of this kind of pools.
Althoug I find interesting the overall idea of the manuscript, it is not adequate for publication in its present form.
The description of the 'framework' (section 2) is rather overconfident, as this is more a revision of former descriptions than an original one. Sections 2, 3 and 4 are is too descriptive, too long and repetitive, the equations are obvious and the figures are of poor quality. Most of this part could be synthesized in the table 1 with approprite references and some auxiliary text like that in section 5.1.
In my opinion, section 5.2 is of value and deserve publication if some aspects are improved. Mostly, the paper should be readable for everybody not used with Australian geologic units, map coordinates and elevation datum. The map in Figure 6 should represent more information than just the location of unknown pools and the figures should be of better quality. The assumptions and interpretations should be better separated from observations.
Section 6 is rather a discussion than a conclusion, but some discussion is necessary not for showing the interest of 'framework' but for identifying research gaps and further research goals, not necesarily using heavy instrumentation.
Many detailed comments are annotated in the manuscript.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sarah Bourke, 08 Dec 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://hess.copernicus.org/preprints/hess-2021-461/hess-2021-461-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sarah Bourke, 08 Dec 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2021-461', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Dec 2021
This paper contains a lot of information and is in a way a literature review with a proposed methodology for diagnostic and an application to study sites. I believe the contents are appropriate and people interested in the topic will find this a useful guide. Because of its nature, the paper has very little quantitative results, so the authors struggle to find a common synthesis or a final message.
I believe readers will benefit from a more succinct treatment in some of the sections. For example, sections 2 and 3 have lengthy introductory paragraphs that tell the reader what the authors are going to do next…I wonder if that is really necessary or if it is better to just mention what points are going to be touched upon and why. A better connection between sections 2,3 and 4 can be provided, with a bit of a synthesis and perhaps based on Table 1. Table 1 should be moved up the manuscript, within section 2. Â
The end of the manuscript is rather abrupt. After going through the application sites the authors go straight to the conclusions, which is most of a summary. There is no discussion of differences or similitudes between sites, lessons learned or future work. I am sure that there are elements of all of this somewhere in the manuscript, but they need to be clearly synthesised at the end. This is, I believe, the main weakness of the manuscript.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Sarah Bourke, 14 Jan 2022
Thanks very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We are pleased that you see value in the work and believe that it will form a useful guide for others, as we intend. Your comments and suggestions are well taken, and we will incorporate these into our revised manuscript. We understand that we should be more succinct where possible, better link Sections 2, 3 and 4, and adjust the location of Table 1. You have identified the main weakness as the end of the manuscript and we will work to improve this during revision in line with your suggestions (more site comparison, lessons learned and future work).Â
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Sarah Bourke, 14 Jan 2022
Sarah A. Bourke et al.
Sarah A. Bourke et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 762 | 198 | 27 | 987 | 9 | 10 |
- HTML: 762
- PDF: 198
- XML: 27
- Total: 987
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1