User:Katsutoshi Seki/Reply

This is a draft for reply to reviews.

Peer review 1
I would like to express my gratitude for your valuable comments on the manuscript. In response, I have revised the manuscript in accordance with your suggestions. Below, you will find my detailed responses to each of your individual comments.

Abstract General description Field observation
 * [E1]: (Comment) The examples cover constructed systems, but bioclogging also occurs in natural systems like riverbeds and soils.
 * (Reply) Following your suggestion, description of "natural systems such as riverbeds and soils" was added.
 * [E2]: Or to enhance soil mechanic properties.
 * The description of "or to enhance soil mechanic properties" was added.
 * [E3R2]: Possible relevant source:
 * The reference was added in the "Field observation" section.
 * [E4]: I recommend not putting these times as they are highly dependent on the system conditions: nutrient and electro acceptor availability, microbes biofilm formation proneness, initial conditions, etc.
 * The description is based on Allison's work, which is based on various experiments at the time. However, as Allison's work was cited at the previous sentence, it was not clear. I modified the sentence to make this point clear. I added Allison's desctiption "After initiating field or laboratory tests, the permeability decreases to a minimum. On highly permeable soils this initial decrease is small, or nonexistent, but for relatively impermeable soils, permeability decreases for 10 to 20 days" to show that this stage may not be present in all condition. I also added a desctiption "This description is based on an experiment conducted at that time, and the actual process of bioclogging depends on system conditions, such as nutrient and electron acceptor availability, microbial biofilm formation propensity, initial conditions, etc."
 * [E5]: These are separate processes that are not covered by bioclogging. I think it would be better to keep the Bioclogging article focused on that topic, and just redirect to other resources about physical and chemical clogging, which can be whole topics on their own.
 * Following your suggestion, I focused on the description of bioclogging. Physical and chemical causes are only briefly described now.
 * [E6]: This could be expanded. Bioclogging not only affects aquifer recharge, but plays an interesting role in the dynamics of surface water and groundwater connection.
 * To be replied with the next suggestion.
 * [E7R6]: Here is a relevant source on the topic that could be mentioned:
 * This is an interesting aspect that I was not aware of. I added the reference and discussed it.
 * [E8]: It would be worth expanding this idea. Bioclogging does not only modify soil hydraulic properties (like permeability) but also mechanical properties, like cohesion and resistance.
 * In the original manuscript I did not mention biocementing, but as it is a closely related phenomena, I described biocementing at the last paragraph.

Peer review 2
I would like to express my gratitude for your valuable comments on the manuscript. In response, I have revised the manuscript in accordance with your suggestions. Below, you will find my detailed responses to each of your individual comments.

Abstract General description Field observation
 * [m2]: (Comment) This is not well connected to the rest. A context is needed.
 * (Reply) I have revised the sentence to clarify the context in which bioclogging can be beneficial.
 * [m3]: Not only, if there is less water available it will also lead to reduced rates. Please be more specific.
 * As it is a "ponded infiltration", it is clear that we are talking about infiltration in saturated condition, where the infiltration rate depends on saturated hydraulic conductivity, not on the water content.
 * [m4]: I think that this sentence is about the history of studying bioclogging? If so it should be formulated accordingly.
 * The description is based on Allison's work, which is based on various experiments at the time. However, as Allison's work was cited at the previous sentence, it was not clear. I modified the sentence to make this point clear.
 * [m5]: Please add since when…
 * The description of the 1st stage was expanded based on Allison's work.
 * [m6]: Why talk now about clogging which is more general than bioclogging? I would suggest a general statement of few sentence about clogging in the section that could be view as “history of Biolclogging” and removing this section below. Ot just focusing on item 3 in the list.
 * In the revised manuscript, I focused on item 3 in the list, and only briefly mentioned other causes of clogging.
 * [m7]: Of what?
 * It is a section about "Field observations of bioclogging". As it is an article about bioclogging, I think it can be ommitted.
 * [m8]: Is this needed for the structure of the article?
 * The section of "Under ponded infiltration" and "Horizontal flow" were removed and merged.
 * [m9]: This sentence does not connect well to the previous sentence.
 * The sentence was removed because it does not give much insight without proper description of specific field condition.
 * [m10]: “The organic material causing bioclogging is sometimes…”
 * The sentence was modified according to your suggestion.
 * [m11]: This is too short to stand alone. Please unite all 3 subsections here under “field problems and countermeasures” to what coherent paragraph. The aspect of countermeasures is very weak. Please extend.
 * In response to your feedback, I have integrated the "Field observation" section into "Field problems and countermeasures" and "Benefits" sections. This restructuring, as referenced in [m16], [m17], and [m18], allows for a clearer and more comprehensive overview of the issues and their respective solutions. Additionally, I expanded the content on countermeasures, drawing upon insights from Song et al. (2020). While the information about river systems presented a categorization challenge, I opted to include it in the "problems" subsection, ensuring that it contributes to the overall context without standing in isolation. This approach maintains the focus on field-related issues and their respective solutions, while also highlighting the benefits observed in various scenarios.
 * [m12]: On what?
 * Clarified as "influence hydrological process".
 * [m13]: Reducing water loss?
 * "for reducing water loss" was added.
 * [m14]: To what purpose?
 * I added description about several properties related to geotechnical engineering; porosity, hydraulic conductivity and shear strength, which is mentioned in the reference.
 * [m15]: In what way? This statement is unclear.
 * By the modification with the next point [m16], the sentence comparing the vertical flow was removed.
 * [m16]: This section is unclear. Why not merging it with the benefits section above?
 * The section of "Horizontal flow" was removed and the description of the constructed wetlands was moved to "benefit" section.
 * [m17]: Perhaps move it to problems above? I understand that the author wishes to partition the water movement direction into section of different relevance but there is too little material to support this structure in my opinion.
 * The section of "Water withdrawal from the well" was moved to "Field problems and countermeasures" section.
 * [m18]: I would have moved it to benefits. Also contamination was already addressed earlier – another reason to merge.
 * The section of "Oil recovery" was moved to "Benefits" section.