Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author's

You written very interesting work. I found few mistakes. My detailed comments are in pdf file. 

You must correct section Methods, because your research must be wrtten in detailed. 

You must also correct figure 1. Detailed comments are in file.

Best regards

Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors completed a study where they investigated the components of the hydrological cycle of different agricultural practices for 3 regions with varying Karst desertification environments. The research presented in this study is an important contribution to the analysis of water use efficiency under the abovementioned conditions. My recommendation is that the manuscript can be published following moderate revisions, especially in terms of English language. My comments can be found in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have investigated the hydrological cycle and agronomic measures in efficient utilization of water resources in Karst ecosystems.

Desertification of Karst ecosystems is a major environmental threat hence the current study sounds interesting. However, I have few concerns listed below:

1.      Please italicize botanical names throughout the MS.

2.      Under  Introduction section I suggest to include more background information about studies dealing with Karst ecosystems apart from Farmland hydrology.

3.      In Figure 1. “Location of study area”…..the sampling points on the map are not clearly visible. I suggest authors to provide a clear map with better image resolution.

4.      In Figure 2. I suggest including standard error of mean (SEM) value in bar graphs

 

5.      As per Figure 2 no substantial differences in soil water content between control groups and treatment are seen. In fact, the bar graph in control groups approaching almost like treatments. Discuss this under concerned section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

I found your paper lacking string justifications why the treatments are selected. I am also not satisfied with the analysis. As far as the research is experimental type, it required statistical tests. Please revise your paper through this perspective.

Regards!

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for addressing my comments and congratulations on publishing this study.

Author Response

Thank you a lot.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for effectively answering my concerns. Meanwhile, I would like to  know the type of experimental design you follow and the corresponding 'analysis of variances' (ANOVA). Your experiment looks like 'factorial type of design' but your analysis is majorly relied on 'correlation analysis'. Since you invested al lot in designing your research experiment, why not you do ANOVA instead on CORRELATION?. I hope you have enough replications to do ANOVA. From my perspective, your paper can be accepted but you can add more analysis for better strength.

Regards!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx