the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Mapping Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems in the Urumqi River and Chai Wo-pu Basins Using Geospatial Technologies and Field Data
Abstract. Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs) are widely distributed in arid and semi-arid regions and serve as critical ecological safety barriers. However, the precise identification and mapping of GDEs has long posed a challenge for researchers, as the integration of geospatial technologies and field measurement techniques has remained insufficient. This study selected the final year of a prolonged drought period and the current year for analysis. Key indicators, including vegetation cover (FVC), the difference between evapotranspiration and precipitation (ET-P), Terrain Wetness Index (TWI) and the vegetation groundwater uptake index (VGUI), were employed. The K-means clustering algorithm was applied for classification, and spatial overlay analysis was performed in the Urumqi River and Chai Wo-pu Basin in Xinjiang, China, to assess the spatial distribution and temporal variations of GDEs. Additionally, the results were validated through the integration of wetland distribution and field investigations. The findings indicate that areas classified as "likely" or "very likely" GDEs are predominantly concentrated around Dongdao Haizi, Chai Wo-pu Lake, salt lakes, and adjacent regions, covering 45.4 % of the potential rea. Over time, the area classified as "unlikely" and "highly unlikely" for GDEs shows an increasing trend. By introducing field data of the VGUI, the study eliminates the interference from factors such as human irrigation in the identification of GDEs in typical areas, achieving refined mapping. This work provides valuable insights for the precise identification of GDEs in arid and semi-arid regions.
- Preprint
(3413 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1190 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4153', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Feb 2025
This manuscript introduced a study of GDE identification, which is fundamental for understanding ecosystem functioning on maintaining local biodiversity. This study applied remote sensing observations and field measurements to identify GDEs, also validated using water table depth data and land use data.
General comments
1. Sptial resolution downscele: It needs to explain why to downscale 1km climate data (rainfall) to 30 meters. It is dangerous to use 1km rainfall data to explain vegetation water use in 30 meters pixels.
2. Author misused NDVI, FVC and potential ET. Firstly, NDVI links to the vegetation chlorophyll content, it can't indicate groundwater table depth. FVC is the vegetation cover. For mature GDEs, GDE FVC should be stable, and it should not change much. Lastly, the authors used PET to indicate the vegetation water use. I think this is wrong, PET indicates the maximum evapotranspiration rate, it relates to the climate (temperature, radiation, wind ...), it has no relationship with groundwater. Hence, using PET-Rainfall relationship can't explain the vegetation accessing groundwater. There are many AET data available, so authors should consider to replace PET to AET.
3. This manuscript used land use data, only mentioned that it was generated using randomforest model, however, I didn't see any details introducing how to train the model and what input features for model training.
4. KNN was used in this study to classify GDEs, but this manuscript didn't visually show the classification results. Without KNN results, I can't evaluate the performance of the methodology. Also, it needs to discuss the contributions of each input feature to GDE identification.
5. This manuscript lacks statistical analysis. Figures in this manuscript only present spatial distribution, authors should consider using other types of figures to explain the model performance.
Other issues:
Line 61: "To validate GDEs identification...." This sentence is hard to understand. Please clarify what's "results"? Why it has limit accuracy?
Line 113: Picking August as the study month may be not appropriate. Not every Augest shows dry climate. Here you need to provide the ET and rainfall data for supporting this selection. or you can pick the driest month for each year using rainfall and pet/et data.
Line 116: You resampled rainfall data from 1km to 30m, how did you ensure the data accuracy? There are a lot uncertainty with remote sensing rainfall data. Normally, rainfall has the character that not spatial continue.
Line 118: Why AET was hard to access? Some remote sensing AET data are avaiable, pml v2, landsat ET, modis ET
Line 120: How did you get this conclusion that vegetation using groundwater when high PET. PET is driven by climate, not groundwater.
Line 132: I can't link FVC to "regional ecological environment quality". FVC is a factor to indicate vegetation structure and coverage.
Line 138: NDVI can't indicate groundwater! at least, it can't directly indicate groundwater. You can see GDEs are sensitive to groundwater, reflecting by NDVI variations.
Line 140: what time period did you use landsat 5 for? Landsat 5 ended in 2012. However, your study included years after 2012. And where did you obtain landsat 5 data? It needs to state in your manuscript.
Line 155: is water body NDVI value in 5th percentile?
Line 192: you have already defined GDEs.
Line 193-196: why these words with capital letters?
Line 199: irrigation region is a typical GDE.
Line 207: How did you get the land use results from landsat? What model did you use? It needs more details.
Line 213: What do you mean "high vegetation quality"?
Line 250: Please clarify the WTD source.
Line 393: How FVC becomes negative? FVC is ranging 0-1
Line 397: Does this ET indicate potential ET or actual ET?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4153-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4153', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Mar 2025
This manuscript utilized geospatial technological analysis and field verification methods to identify and map the GDEs in the Urumqi River and Chai Wo-pu Basins, obtaining the distribution of potential GDEs, which holds scientific value. The methods employed are generally feasible, and the conclusions drawn are credible. However, the following points require further modification and enhancement:
- The title of the manuscript only includes mapping, but does not include identification and verification, which is included in the content of the paper, so the title did not reflect the contents of the paper clearly.
- The abstract does not provide a concise and complete summary. For example, what indicators are used to identify the GDEs, what methods are used to map, and what methods are used to verify it, which cannot be clearly reflectedin the manuscript.
- The keyword of Integrated Mapping is not adequately reflected in the paper, and the details of Geospatial Technologies are not thoroughly explained. Therefore, the selection of keywords requires further consideration.
- In lines 61-63 on page 2 of the the introduction chapter, concerning the verification methods of GDES, the author referenced relevant literature and stated that the accuracy and reliability of the results would be limited. In fact, the opposite is true; employing various methods, including field hydrogeological surveys to verify the distribution of GDEs, would enhance the accuracy and reliability of GDE identification.
- The paper suggests that the impact of human irrigation should be eliminated when identifying GDES. In fact, GDEs may still be present if minimal groundwater irrigation does not lead to a significant drop in groundwater levels, allowing plant roots to continue absorbing groundwater. A specific analysis is necessary and at the very least, the groundwater depth in the irrigation area should be considered in this study area. So in the introduction chapter for study area, it is essential not only to reflect on the hydrological characteristics of rivers and reservoirs but also to describe the hydrogeological conditions, including the characteristics of groundwater recharge, and discharge, groundwater exploitation, and the depth of groundwater in the study area.
- Based on low annual precipitation and ongoing drought, and considering the principle of temporal proximity, this paper selects 2001, 2006, 2014, 2020, and 2023 as the identification years for GDE. However, no time series data on precipitation is available, and the selection of typical years should also take into account the impact of regional groundwater development. It is advisable to briefly outline the reasons and rationale for this choice.
- In section 1.2 Data Collection and Processing, why is Fractional Vegetation Cover (FVC) chosen instead of using the NDVI data index directly? What impact does selecting the indexes of Terrain Wetness Index (TWI) and the ET-P deference in the process of GDEs identification?In particular, TWI is a physical indicator used to measure the influence of regional topography on runoff direction and runoff accumulation, How is it applied for GDEs identification?
- In the Section 1.3 Methods, the logical description of the identification, mapping, and validation of GDEs needs to be strengthened.
- Is The K-means algorithm used for GDEs identification or classification or mapping? Figure 2 seems to be used for layer processing and mapping.
- The Vegetation Groundwater Utilization Index (VGUI) selected by validation of GDEs is literally understood as the amount or ratio of groundwater absorbed by vegetation, reflecting a concept that vegetation partially or completely accepts groundwater recharge. However, this paper shows a difference between the root depth of vegetation plus the height of capillary rise and the depth of groundwater burial. Further clarification is needed.
- When using the capillary rise height values (Hc) corresponding to different types of soil, the paper references data from the literature(Li, X., Chang, S. X., and Salifu, K. F.: Soil texture and layering effects on water and salt dynamics in the presence of a water table: a review, Environmental Reviews, 22, 41-50 ) and presents it in the table 1 . Please verify whether the literature data is based on theoretical calculations, column experiments, numerical simulations, or actual monitoring results, as these values can vary significantly! As a general rule of thumb, the Hc value for fine sand ranges from 0.25 to 0.5 m, while the Hc value for silty sand and sandy clay falls between 1 and 2 m.
- The methods for GDEs verificationused in this paper are categorized into wetland verification and field verification in typical areas. Notably, whether wetland verification is conducted through specific investigation or remote sensing interpretation, if the latter is employed, the results derived from one uncertain method are validated by another uncertain method, which appears to lack credibility.
- In the conclusion of the potential GDEs distribution mapping, particularly as represented in Figure 3, the area excluding the bedrock distribution reflects the potential GDEs distribution based solely on the topography and lithology map. This result merits further discussion. Since potential GDEs may be found in the distribution areas of Quaternary pore water and bedrock fracture water, additional hydrogeological maps, profiles, aquifer distributions, and groundwater types are necessary to accurately identify and determine the potential GDEs distribution.
- It appears that the paper only presents the results of GDEs distribution over many years, yet it does not address the correlation between the size or range of the GDEs distribution area and factors such as precipitation, groundwater depth, and human groundwater exploitation activities in the discussion section, nor is a rationale provided.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4153-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4153', Anonymous Referee #3, 17 Mar 2025
Proposing reliable approaches to identify groundwater-dependent ecosystems (GDEs) and to assess their dependence on groundwater can be useful for hydrology. In this paper, remote sensing, meteorological and topographic data were used to calculate key indicators and then clustering analysis was used to identify GDEs. The method was further validated with field measurements.
However, in my opinion, this manuscript needs many improvements and its novelty is not clear. Some grammatical errors, confusing sentences and redundant vocabulary may hinder the message the authors want to convey.
General comments
- The structure of the manuscript is suggested to be modified. Usually, Section I is the introduction. Besides, the section of Materials and Method is too long, and it could be better to separate them into different sections.
- Introduction - To improve readability, consider organizing the content into more paragraphs, e.g., the definition of groundwater-dependent ecosystems (GDEs), the importance of identifying GDEs, current approaches to identifying GDEs, current gaps, and the purpose of the study. The general significance of the study in hydrology should be emphasized.
- Data Collection and Processing - Since this section is not the main focus of the study, I suggest removing some of the unnecessary descriptions or moving some details to the Supplementary Material.
- Methods - The logic seems strange. As I understand it, (1) you select potential areas based on hydrogeological zones and land use types; (2) three indicators, i.e., FVC, ET-P (ET or PET?), and TWI, are used to cluster the pixels and thus obtain the map of probability levels; (3) wetland ecosystem and some field measurements are used for validation; (4) the indicator of VGUI is included in the clustering operation to further identify the GDEs in typical areas (or for validation?). I am confused about the main purpose and main innovation of this study. Please clarify further. If your aim is to propose a new method, I think you should focus more on how to identify the GDEs via the selected indicators using clustering operation, and then thoroughly discuss the advantages of your method by comparison (more accurate identification results? Or improved operational efficiency? etc.).
- Results and Analysis - There are too many qualitative analyses with only a few quantitative descriptions of changes in areas.
Specific comments:
Lines 52-54: The reference should appear after the author's name which is mentioned for the first time.
Line 66: What does “periodic identification” mean?
Lines 110-114: Could you provide some evidence to support this? It can be included as the Supplementary Material.
Lines 118-119: Actual evapotranspiration data with high resolution is not difficult to obtain (e.g. MOD16 products).
Lines 120-121: “Higher potential evapotranspiration values suggest that vegetation may be utilizing groundwater.” Based on hydrological principles, potential evapotranspiration is controlled by many other factors, so your point is not really convincing.
Lines 138-139: “Additionally, NDVI shows a good correlation with groundwater, making it a suitable indicator for shallow groundwater storage conditions…” Although the authors cite a reference here, I don't think this is reasonable, as it may only apply to specific regions and may not be generalizable to other areas.
Lines 221-222: It is important to know how to identify GDEs. Could you explain this in more details? Why is the k-value 5? Have you checked the optimal clusters using the performance metrics?
Line 241: There are two 1.3.4 sections.
Lines 393-394: “Since 2000, the average FVC in the Urumqi River Basin has shown a slow upward trend, ranging from -10% to +10%.” I am a bit confused about this sentence.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4153-RC3
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
95 | 33 | 7 | 135 | 18 | 4 | 5 |
- HTML: 95
- PDF: 33
- XML: 7
- Total: 135
- Supplement: 18
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 56 | 40 |
China | 2 | 15 | 10 |
Norway | 3 | 9 | 6 |
Taiwan | 4 | 6 | 4 |
Australia | 5 | 5 | 3 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 56