the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 08 Mar 2023
Study of the effect of local forcing on the fractal behavior of shallow groundwater levels in a riparian aquifer
Abstract. With the help of a physically based recharge-groundwater flow model and robust detrended fluctuation analysis (r-DFAn), the effect of local (catchment-scale) forcing on groundwater levels’ scaling behavior in a riparian aquifer in Wallingford, UK, is investigated. The local forcings investigated in this study include the rainfall’s temporal scaling behavior (which is simulated by changing rainfall’s intermittency parameter in a β-lognormal multiplicative random cascade model), the aquifer’s physical parameters (saturated hydraulic conductivity, specific yield, the empirical coefficients of the water retention curve, and the river stage’s scaling behavior).
Groundwater level’s scaling behaviour was found to be most sensitive to rainfall’s fractal behaviour. Additionally, there is preliminary evidence suggesting that changes to the rainfall’s local scaling behaviour (i.e., change to the series’ scaling that induces crossovers) affects the groundwater’s and the recharge’s local scaling behaviour.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(3803 KB)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2023-27', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Jul 2023
The manuscript includes material that can be seen as a direct continuation of a series of works by some of the lead co-Authors (as also apparent from the reference list). It is also focused on the very same experimental site tackled in previous works and relies on the same data (or mostly). While being technically correct, a first critical point associated with the current work is its incremental value with respect to previous published work by the group. Analysis of the fractal nature of quantities associated with the groundwater flow simulations are illustrated in prior works, albeit not directly related to the fractal nature of rainfall. All in all, the results illustrated in the current contribution are seen as a straightforward extension of the previous work, in this sense. Additionally, they are illustrated with only minimal insight on physics underpinning the documented results.
With reference to the data, I am not sure the uncertainty associated with these has been explored. This might be considered as an issue which is not too critical at this point.
Additional comments include the lack of a modern sensitivity analysis (either Local or Global) from which one can see clear contributions of model parameters to the uncertainty of model outputs and their importance to it in a quantifiable manner.
The assumption of homogeneity of the subsurface system seem to be too limiting to discern the impact of, e.g., hydraulic conductivity on the evidenced multifractal behavior of groundwater levels. I would have suggested enhancing the possibility of discerning such an impact upon relying on a randomly heterogeneous distribution of conductivity, for instance.
Additionally, it is noted that the Authors rely on a previously calibrated model and employ the estimated model parameters as a guidance around which they then vary them in their simulations. The interval of variability of the model parameters around their estimated counterparts should be driven by the estimation uncertainty associated with the inverse modeling results. These are not reported (and I was not able to find these in previous material). As such, it is not clear how the variability of model parameters is constrained to the available data.
In summary, I do think the elements of weakness overshadow the aspects of novelty and I am afraid I am not recommending acceptance of the work with its current content and scope.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-27-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Abrar Habib, 10 Aug 2023
-
EC1: 'Comment on hess-2023-27', Brian Berkowitz, 14 Jul 2023
The single review and additional comments (to be sent in the decision letter) of the handling editor are sufficient.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-27-EC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2023-27', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Jul 2023
The single review and additional comments (to be sent in the decision letter) of the handling editor are sufficient to explain the decision.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-27-RC2 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Abrar Habib, 10 Aug 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2023-27', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Jul 2023
The manuscript includes material that can be seen as a direct continuation of a series of works by some of the lead co-Authors (as also apparent from the reference list). It is also focused on the very same experimental site tackled in previous works and relies on the same data (or mostly). While being technically correct, a first critical point associated with the current work is its incremental value with respect to previous published work by the group. Analysis of the fractal nature of quantities associated with the groundwater flow simulations are illustrated in prior works, albeit not directly related to the fractal nature of rainfall. All in all, the results illustrated in the current contribution are seen as a straightforward extension of the previous work, in this sense. Additionally, they are illustrated with only minimal insight on physics underpinning the documented results.
With reference to the data, I am not sure the uncertainty associated with these has been explored. This might be considered as an issue which is not too critical at this point.
Additional comments include the lack of a modern sensitivity analysis (either Local or Global) from which one can see clear contributions of model parameters to the uncertainty of model outputs and their importance to it in a quantifiable manner.
The assumption of homogeneity of the subsurface system seem to be too limiting to discern the impact of, e.g., hydraulic conductivity on the evidenced multifractal behavior of groundwater levels. I would have suggested enhancing the possibility of discerning such an impact upon relying on a randomly heterogeneous distribution of conductivity, for instance.
Additionally, it is noted that the Authors rely on a previously calibrated model and employ the estimated model parameters as a guidance around which they then vary them in their simulations. The interval of variability of the model parameters around their estimated counterparts should be driven by the estimation uncertainty associated with the inverse modeling results. These are not reported (and I was not able to find these in previous material). As such, it is not clear how the variability of model parameters is constrained to the available data.
In summary, I do think the elements of weakness overshadow the aspects of novelty and I am afraid I am not recommending acceptance of the work with its current content and scope.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-27-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Abrar Habib, 10 Aug 2023
-
EC1: 'Comment on hess-2023-27', Brian Berkowitz, 14 Jul 2023
The single review and additional comments (to be sent in the decision letter) of the handling editor are sufficient.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-27-EC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2023-27', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Jul 2023
The single review and additional comments (to be sent in the decision letter) of the handling editor are sufficient to explain the decision.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-27-RC2 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Abrar Habib, 10 Aug 2023
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 490 | 155 | 39 | 684 | 26 | 37 |
- HTML: 490
- PDF: 155
- XML: 39
- Total: 684
- BibTeX: 26
- EndNote: 37
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1