Analysis of the Influence of Forests on Landslides in the Bijie Area of Guizhou

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

forests-1651717-peer-review-v1

 

The manuscript “Analysis of the Influence of Forests on Landslides in the Bijie Area of Guizhou” addresses an interesting and up-to-date subject, which adhere to Forests journal policies.

 

The manuscript tackles an interesting topic, related to the evaluation of forests influence in regards to landslides, and the work is fairly comprehensive and well written. Improvements recommended:

 

-        The abstract needs to be improved and should contain more concrete results

-        The Introduction chapter can be improved and expanded

-        The landslide susceptibility map is the backbone of your research and unfortunately it is severely underrepresented in your article. I understand now that you article is an evaluation based on this existing map, but it is crucial to obtain and present information regarding the landslide susceptibility map, how was made, technique used, validation method, database used etc.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper concerns the relationship between vegetation cover and landslide susceptibility in a region of China.

The work is well structured and rich in vegetation cover data.

However, no relationship is specified between the geological conditions of the area and the landslide susceptibility. For example, in Fig. 1 it seems clear that the eastern part is the most susceptible to landslides: why? Are there lithological and, more generally, geological conditions that determine this? What are the types of landslides that occur? According to the type of landslide, the type of vegetation can affect the stability of the slopes, both positively and negatively.

I believe that a chapter concerning the characteristics of landslides in the area has to be inserted, which better clarifies the relationship between vegetation cover and landslides in the area.

 

Minor suggestions are contained in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised manuscript demonstrates the author’s commitment in improving the overall paper, thus obtaining a cohesive and interesting article, worthy of consideration for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your patience and careful work in perfecting our article, and we hope you have a great week.

Reviewer 2 Report

The revision of the paper by the Authors, according to what I requested, is to be considered clearly insufficient.

References to the geological context continue to be very vague.

A geological map has not even been inserted, which allows us to relate the susceptibility of landslides to the geological context.

The Authors talk very generically about karst, basalts, clays, fault zones ...

How are these elements related to current landslides and landslide susceptibility?

I think that these elements are much more important than vegetation cover as factors predisposing to landslide and when the topic of landslide suceptibility is under consideration. 

The Authors talk about two types of landslides ("There are two types of landslides in the study area: accumulation layer landslides and rock layer landslides"). What classification is this ?! Do the Authors know the landslides classifications of Varnes (1978) and Cruden & Varnes (1993) which are the most important to which everyone now refers?

Without having further detailed all these elements, the paper loses any meaning and in my opinion it is to be rejected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I would avoid writing: "The soft rocks are mainly mudstone and shale, including sandstone, conglomerate, marl, etc., mainly distributed in the central region"   It should be replaced with:   "Mudstones and shales, including sandstones, conglomerates, marls, etc., are mainly distributed in the central region"   This is because mudstones and sandstones are not "soft rocks"!  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx