the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
One year of high frequency monitoring of groundwater physico-chemical parameters in the Weierbach Experimental Catchment, Luxembourg
Abstract. The critical zone (CZ) is the Earth's skin where rock, water, air, and life interact – playing a pivotal role in sustaining ecological processes and life-supporting resources. Understanding these interactions, especially in forested headwater catchments, is key for managing water resources, predicting environmental responses, and assessing human impacts. We present a novel dataset from the Weierbach Experimental Catchment in Luxembourg, derived from a year-long high-frequency monitoring campaign that focused on groundwater physico-chemical parameters. Through meticulous data collection and rigorous quality control, parameters such as electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen, oxidation-reduction potential, and pH were measured, offering new insights into the CZ's hydrological and biogeochemical dynamics. The dataset highlights the intricate interplay between redox reactions, pH, and ion exchange processes, as well as the influence of seasonal variability and flowline interactions on solute transport. By providing a detailed view of the catchment's response to hydrological changes, this dataset fills a significant gap in CZ research, offering a valuable resource for advancing our understanding of hydro-biogeochemical catchment processes. The datasets introduced in this contribution may be leveraged by researchers and practitioners aiming to refine models, inform land management practices, and foster a more holistic understanding of catchment biogeochemistry.
- Preprint
(5057 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 14 Jan 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-259', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Oct 2024
reply
The manuscript presents a comprehensive database on groundwater levels and physico-chemical properties with high frequency measurements and sampling in the small Weierbach catchment in Luxembourg. This type of data is fundamental for sustainable water resources management, environmental and public health protection and future planning in the face of climate change. In times of dynamic changes in natural environment, we need as much of this type of data as possible from different areas.
The description of the data base, the data acquisition methods and the possibilities for their use have been clearly and accurately drawn up. It is evident that the authors have applied rigorous data quality control criteria. And I have no doubt that this database can be a valuable and useful source of information for scientists.
However, these are not the first studies conducted with such high frequency. There are experimental catchments in Europe where similar measurements have been carried out for a longer time. Examples include the TERENO experimental catchments in Germany https://www.tereno.net/, including the Wüstebach catchment, which is relatively close to Weierbach and with similar environmental conditions. Sampling of groundwater and determination of its chemical properties also takes place there on a weekly basis. It would be good to refer to measurements in other areas; is the research described by the authors part of the current of European research, or does it contribute something more?
Secondly, I have my doubts that data collected for one year can be sufficient to determine ‘catchment response to hydrological change’, ‘ catchment seasonal variability’, ‘dynamics between shallow and deeper flowlines’ and whether it is sufficient for any modelling. Each year is different and at least several years of data are needed to demonstrate any patterns. Perhaps some statements could be reworded or softened.
Thirdly, the authors extensively describe the usage and applications of the data, but what about the weaknesses or limitations of data usage? A paragraph or subsection discussing these limitations and how to address them would be helpful.
Specific comments:
Lines 43-45: This sentence requires references.
Line 94: I suggest adding ‘level’ between groundwater and monitoring.
Lines 121-127: It is not clear to me whether the field measurements were conducted directly in the borehole or if the water was first collected and then measured. If it’s the latter, into what kind of container was the water collected, was the measurement taken immediately after collection or with some delay, and what was the volume of such a sample?
Line 186: Does the provided database from one-year monitoring campaign truly allow us to address the mentioned problems? Isn't there a need for longer measurement series? Perhaps the authors should soften this statement somehow, for example, by discussing the potential of the data, etc.
Lines 187-188: The authors mention previous studies, but they do not specify which studies they are referring to. It would be helpful to include references to these studies here.
Lines 200-202: Same as previous. Provide references to these previous studies.
Lines 220-221: Provide some exaples/references.
Lines 231-233: Same as before. The references are missing.
Lines 248-249: What do you mean by 'extends beyond conventional monitoring efforts'? In other experimental catchments, groundwater measurements have also been conducted on a weekly basis for several years. It would be good to reference these studies and clearly state what is new about your measurements.
Line 260: I would rather write about the potential significance of this database, provided that the measurements continue, because can a one-year measurement campaign really address these issues?
Figure 5. The text refers to Figure 5, which is supposed to show graphs of SO4 and NO3 concentrations, but they are missing from the figure. Additionally, there is no need to repeat the DO and pH graphs on the lower plot, as they are already present on the upper one.
Technical corrections:
Line 24: remove dot after “reactive rock formations”
Figure 4: I would eliminate the black outlines of the circles, as it is difficult to distinguish the colours with such a high density of points.
Table 1: Please standardize the notation of the coordinates in either uppercase or lowercase letters (WGS or wgs).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-259-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Karl Nicolaus Van Zweel, 20 Dec 2024
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2024-259/essd-2024-259-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Karl Nicolaus Van Zweel, 20 Dec 2024
reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2024-259', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Oct 2024
reply
The methods in the paper are novel and the data is well presented. The data set is complete and of high quality. It is useful for other researchers to use.
I would only recommend changing certain colours in figures, particularly yellow.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-259-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Karl Nicolaus Van Zweel, 20 Dec 2024
reply
Thank you for your positive feedback regarding the novelty, quality, and presentation of our dataset. We appreciate your suggestion regarding the figure colors, particularly the use of yellow. We will review and adjust the color scheme in the figures to ensure better clarity and accessibility for all readers.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-259-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Karl Nicolaus Van Zweel, 20 Dec 2024
reply
Data sets
One year of high frequency monitoring of groundwater physico-chemical parameters in the Weierbach Experimental Catchment, Luxembourg. Christophe Hissler et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10869166
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
274 | 36 | 119 | 429 | 5 | 11 |
- HTML: 274
- PDF: 36
- XML: 119
- Total: 429
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1