the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 04 Nov 2024
Electrical resistivity imaging data for hydrological and soil investigations of virgin Rospuda river peatland (North-East Poland)
Abstract. This publication presents data on geophysical measurements performed in the Rospuda wetlands located in North-Eastern Poland. The measurements were carried out by means of the the Electrical Resistivity Imaging (ERI) method, which so far was to our best knowledge never used in the River Rospuda wetland valley. The ERI data were collected in single survey campaign in November 2022 to account for the wet season. During the campaign two ERI profiles were measured. The aim of the field works was to provide the material for illustration of the arrangement of geological layers creating the wetland. The data repository contains detailed data descriptions for each survey site. The ERI data from the selected survey sites can be used first of all to create the conceptual numerical model of groundwater and surface water interaction in this environmentally valuable area, which is to a certain extent a scientific terra incognita, but also for hydrological investigation of hydraulic conductivity and hydrodynamic field, identify geological structure, and characterize engineering properties of the organic soils.
- Preprint
(1605 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CC1: 'Comment on gi-2024-11', Vincenzo Lapenna, 22 Nov 2024
The paper deals with the application of the method of Electrical Resistivity Tomography for the investigation of the near-subsurface
in a complex hydrogeological area: the Rospuda river bog (Poland). To date, there has been a growing interest in novel applications of the ERT method, such as
to study peatlands and the impact of climate change on these fragile geological environments. This paper is therefore welcomed.
However, I suggest to improve the overall quality of the paper.
1. In the Introduction section, it is important to cite the most recent and relevant papers on the subject.
2. It is necessary to improve the quality of Figure 2, the small figure at the top is not clear. It is important to localise the study area in a large scale.
3. The order of figures 1 and 2 could be changed.
4. The paragraphs 2 and 3 could be combined. The data could be described after the presentation of the experimental field design and data collection.
5. The Data value and Limitations paragraphs could be merged into a "Discussion" paragraph.
6. The analysis of the results is purely qualitative, I suggest to include more quantitative considerations and a comparison with the hydrogeological data.
7. Finally, the English for needs to be revised.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-2024-11-CC1 - RC1: 'Comment on gi-2024-11', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Nov 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on gi-2024-11', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Dec 2024
The paper can be useful for having ERT data in peatland scenarios. However, some changes are necessary to accept the work. Authors should enhance the resolution of the images and improve the introduction citing the most relevant scientific works regarding the analyzed target. Indeed the bibliography is too limited. As regards the data presented, it is interesting that the users provide information about data error measurement distribution. It is also useful for the reader to define for the adopted array used, the maximum reciprocal distance selected for potential and current electrodes
Further, thanks to the availability of geological models a more effective interpretation of the inverted data should be provided. Are available direct data (i.e. cores) close to the ERTs? The reference Jablonska et al. 2010 is difficult to use since it is not in English. The authors should give more information about the geological context or insert another reference to clarify the geological context. For this reason, the case study presented in the actual form is not very usable for other readers. Please, increase the quality of figure 4 (the electrical resistivity data points distribution). Why use a high vertical exaggeration when data distribution is so shallow? Can you indicate the total number of rejected measurements for your inversion?Finally, there is no interpretation of the data. I know that the paper shows only the dataset but a short interpretation its fundamental for the correct use of the data.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-2024-11-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on gi-2024-11', Anonymous Referee #3, 04 Dec 2024
This study focuses on applying Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) to investigate the near-subsurface of the Rospuda River bog in Poland, an area with complex hydrogeological conditions. With increasing interest in the novel applications of ERT, particularly in studying peatlands and their response to climate change, this research contributes to the growing body of work examining the effects of environmental changes on these fragile geological environments. The authors did a huge field work, but the paper need a strong revision. They have to work hard on in order to be a published paper.
Detailed suggestions:
1 Background
The background chapter is the final part of an Introduction chapter. I suggest to add this chapter (“Introduction”) with dedicated details. It is important to describe the actual knowledges on the topic of the paper with the indication on relevant papers.
I suggest to add more information on the site. The Figure 1 is not described.
Figure 1: I suggest to improve the text with the indications on the features showed in the figure (i.e. dot line, vertical continue line, etc.).
2 Data description
The text of the Data description chapter is missing several descriptions...the number of ERIs...how many roll-along were necessary,
The text on the Table 1 is more a table caption not a description.
3 Experimental design, materials and method
This chapter should be merged with chapter 2.
The figure 4 is not necessary, but is is important the sketch of the roll along distribution acquired data in order to check if there were some empty zone (zone without data) in order to check the final resistivity model.
4 Limitations: this chapter should be merged with chapter 5
5 Data Value: this chapter should be merged with chapter 4
In this chapter there are several considerations with only qualitative indications. I suggest to improve the discussion on the final results with more attention on the correlation between the geoelectrical results and the geological information. The final part is too generic and this part are only comments that did not improve the discussion.
References: The number of cited papers is too short, I suggest to increase the number of the citation in order to improve the Introduction.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-2024-11-RC3
Data sets
Electrical resistivity imaging data for hydrological and geological investigations of virgin Rospuda river peatland (North-East Poland) - original data Grzegorz Sinicyn, Radosław Mieszkowski, Łukasz Kaczmarek, Stanisław Mieszkowski, Bartosz Bednarz, Krzysztof Kochanek, Mateusz Grygoruk, and Maria Grodzka-Łukaszewska https://doi.org/10.17632/5m34cs5zn4.2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 164 | 55 | 8 | 227 | 2 | 1 |
- HTML: 164
- PDF: 55
- XML: 8
- Total: 227
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 1
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1