the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Stable isotope (δ18O, δ2H) signature of river runoff, groundwater, and precipitation in three river basins in the center of East European Plain
Abstract. Empirical study of the isotopic features of river runoff were conducted at three hydrological posts in three different river basins: the Zakza river in the center of East European Plane (southwest of Moscow), the Dubna river (north of Moscow) and the Sosna Bystraya river in the south of central region. Samples of river water, groundwater, and precipitation for the October 2019–October 2021 were collected at weekly intervals. At total 332 samples of river water, 275 samples of groundwater and 194 samples of precipitation were collected. Precipitation was collected as an integral sample of all precipitation fallen during the week before sampling date. For each precipitation samples, the total amount of precipitation and air temperature, weighted by precipitation amount, are given according to weather station in river basin. During the observation period, there were two completely different conditions in terms of runoff formation. First, from October 2019 to October 2020, there was an unusually low spring freshet followed by a big rain flood in July. From October 2020–October 2021, there was a normal intra-annual flow pattern with high spring freshet. A significant supply of melted snow during spring freshet is the key factor influencing water regimes in these three river basins; varying degrees of anthropogenic flow regulation are also present. The new height frequency and complete data of stable isotope signature of river runoff component can help to study the response of a river runoff to climate change.
- Preprint
(1409 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on essd-2022-377', István Fórizs, 21 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2022-377', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Dec 2022
Review of Stable isotope (δ18O, δ2H) signature of river runoff, groundwater, and precipitation in three river basins in the center of East European Plain by Chizova et al. (revised ms for ESSD)
The ms under review is a resubmission of a previously rejected one. The main reason for rejection was the potential improper treatment of samples before analysis, as resulting from the reported values of d18O and d2H and lack of clear description of sampling and storage. A recent paper by Skrzypek et al. (2022) discusses minimum requirements for publishing such data and I encourage the authors to adhere to these (available here).
Now, onto the paper, and considering the issues raised above, there seems to be something very wrong with the groundwater data from Zakza. In fig. 2c a clear evaporative trend for water sampled here is discernable, which is difficult to reconciliation with an artesian well rising from well below 80 m. Simply put, there is no way that water could have been evaporated before reaching the surface. Is it possible that water was sampled from a pool sitting on the surface for quite a while? Ethe other option is miss-handling of the samples after collection (storage in low density plastic bottles, at high temperatures, for extended periods of time). While the other data warrants publications, the authors need to explain this discrepancy before the paper could move to a more advanced state.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2022-377-RC2
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on essd-2022-377', István Fórizs, 21 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2022-377', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Dec 2022
Review of Stable isotope (δ18O, δ2H) signature of river runoff, groundwater, and precipitation in three river basins in the center of East European Plain by Chizova et al. (revised ms for ESSD)
The ms under review is a resubmission of a previously rejected one. The main reason for rejection was the potential improper treatment of samples before analysis, as resulting from the reported values of d18O and d2H and lack of clear description of sampling and storage. A recent paper by Skrzypek et al. (2022) discusses minimum requirements for publishing such data and I encourage the authors to adhere to these (available here).
Now, onto the paper, and considering the issues raised above, there seems to be something very wrong with the groundwater data from Zakza. In fig. 2c a clear evaporative trend for water sampled here is discernable, which is difficult to reconciliation with an artesian well rising from well below 80 m. Simply put, there is no way that water could have been evaporated before reaching the surface. Is it possible that water was sampled from a pool sitting on the surface for quite a while? Ethe other option is miss-handling of the samples after collection (storage in low density plastic bottles, at high temperatures, for extended periods of time). While the other data warrants publications, the authors need to explain this discrepancy before the paper could move to a more advanced state.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2022-377-RC2
Data sets
Stable isotope composition (δ18O, δ2H) of river runoff, groundwater and precipitation at three hydrological stations in the European part of Russia Chizhova, Julia N; Kireeva, Maria B; Rets, Ekaterina P; Ekaykin, Alexey A; Kozachek, Anna; Veres, Arina N; Varentsova, Natalia; Gorbarenko, Artem; Samsonov, Timofey; Povalyaev, Nikita; Kharlamov, Maxim; Plotnikova, Valentina https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.942291
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
546 | 184 | 56 | 786 | 51 | 57 |
- HTML: 546
- PDF: 184
- XML: 56
- Total: 786
- BibTeX: 51
- EndNote: 57
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1