Land Use Change Impacts on Water Erosion in Rwanda

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with effects of land use change on soil erosion in Rwanda, which is a theme of high interest.

Some minor points are in the attached version; english language needs a revision and a particular attention to punctuations. Not all the errors and problems are highlighted in the attached version.

The structure and the logical sequence followed in the paper are adequate and only some minor efforts could be spent in discussion and conclusion regarding the proposed solutions.

In this sense some more references could be added regarding terraces practice even in other areas of the world. Even some considerations regarding problems that may arise if terraces are not properly managed could be of interest for an international reader. Some comparison could be useful, if authors agree, with problems of erosion in areas where terraces are not maintained and in abandon.

Hereafter are some possible references:

Tarolli P, Preti F, Romano N. 2014. Terraced landscapes: from an old best practice to a potential hazard for soil degradation due to land abandonment. Anthropocene. DOI: 10.1016/j.ancene.2014.03.002. Paliaga G, Giostrella P, Faccini F. “Terraced landscape as cultural and environmental heritage at risk: an example from Portofino Park (Italy)”. ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 26 · 2016 · 3 - DOI 10.19233/ASHS.2016.32, 2016. Faccini, F., Paliaga, G., Piana, P., Sacchini, A., & Watkins, C. 2016. The Bisagno stream catchment (Genoa, Italy) and its major floods: geomorphic and land use variations in the last three centuries. Geomorphology, 273, 14-27.  Brancucci, G., Paliaga, G., 2006. The hazard assessment in a terraced landscape: the Liguria (Italy) case study in the Interreg III Alpter project. Geohazards -Technical, Economical and Social Risk Evaluation. Vero ̈ ffentlichungen des Instituts fu ̈ r Geotechnik der Techischen Universita ̈t Bergakademie Freiberg (2007), pp. 227–234.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to reviewer #1

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required 
( ) Moderate English changes required 
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required 
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

The paper deals with effects of land use change on soil erosion in Rwanda, which is a theme of high interest.

Some minor points are in the attached version; english language needs a revision and a particular attention to punctuations. Not all the errors and problems are highlighted in the attached version.

The structure and the logical sequence followed in the paper are adequate and only some minor efforts could be spent in discussion and conclusion regarding the proposed solutions.

In this sense some more references could be added regarding terraces practice even in other areas of the world. Even some considerations regarding problems that may arise if terraces are not properly managed could be of interest for an international reader. Some comparison could be useful, if authors agree, with problems of erosion in areas where terraces are not maintained and in abandon.

Hereafter are some possible references:

Tarolli P, Preti F, Romano N. 2014. Terraced landscapes: from an old best practice to a potential hazard for soil degradation due to land abandonment. Anthropocene. DOI: 10.1016/j.ancene.2014.03.002. Paliaga G, Giostrella P, Faccini F. “Terraced landscape as cultural and environmental heritage at risk: an example from Portofino Park (Italy)”. ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 26 · 2016 · 3 - DOI 10.19233/ASHS.2016.32, 2016. Faccini, F., Paliaga, G., Piana, P., Sacchini, A., & Watkins, C. 2016. The Bisagno stream catchment (Genoa, Italy) and its major floods: geomorphic and land use variations in the last three centuries. Geomorphology, 273, 14-27.  Brancucci, G., Paliaga, G., 2006. The hazard assessment in a terraced landscape: the Liguria (Italy) case study in the Interreg III Alpter project. Geohazards -Technical, Economical and Social Risk Evaluation. Vero ̈ ffentlichungen des Instituts fu ̈ r Geotechnik der Techischen Universita ̈t Bergakademie Freiberg (2007), pp. 227–234.

Response: We very greatly appreciate the detailed reading of our manuscript and valuable suggestions of the reviewer. Overall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learned much from it. After carefully studying the reviewer's comments and your advice, we have made corresponding changes to the manuscript, we have also provided additional literature in the introductory and discussion sections of the revised manuscript (P2 L72-76 & P16 L418-425).

Specific comments

P5 L158: The databases details should be added.

Response: Thank you once more for the useful suggestion, we have provided the databases details in table 1 of the revised manuscript (P5 L165-173).   

P11 L317-320: Please re-write clearly.

Response: We really appreciate your constructive suggestion; we have improved these sentences in the revised manuscript (P10 L274-277).

P11 L328: It would be more clear if data were presented in a table.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion, we have presented the data in table 4 of the revised manuscript (P10 L278).

P12 L339: Capital letter?

Response: Thank you for the comment, changes made accordingly (P11 L294-295).

P14 L279: Space

Response: We have changed it according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

P14 L424: be

Response: Thanks for your suggestion, we have incorporated it into the revised manuscript (P13 L354).

P15 L434: among

Response: We have eliminated this word as suggested by reviewer #2.

P15 L457: in

Response: We have deleted the sentence as suggested by reviewer #2.

Reviewer 2 Report

General –

Various papers have been published on soil erosion and its control in Rwanda with most concentrating on a particular region or land use type. This paper takes a broad national approach which can be justified given the paper’s objectives and the size of area being considered. In its present form the paper needs substantial revision to clarify arguments, remove redundant descriptions/information, and ensure that wording conveys the authors’ intentions. It could then be re-submitted.

Concerns –

Detailed background descriptions of Rwanda are probably needed for the reader to gain a general understanding of biophysical and human aspects of the country, but such detail is not necessary when dealing with well-known erosion models like RUSLE. I have made numerous suggested changes on the draft in order to minimize unnecessary wording, with the overall suggestion that the paper retain information about the specific data sources and manipulations used (but eliminate excessive wordiness about matters that are general knowledge).

The number of references (104) is more than most papers would require. Please check whether all these are essential, along with ensuring that the correct bracketed number appears for each reference. (My strong preference is for the Harvard system which automatically reduces errors and allows for easy identification of alphabetically arranged papers, but journals prefer numbers as they save space….)

English language expression needs attention. An annotated pdf is attached, with suggested changes. Explanation - This feedback method was used in preference creating a written list of proposed alterations or acting as an editing reviewer making changes for authors. Throughout I have tried to reduce repetition in the text, but examples still remain. It would be sensible to check for repetition once amendments have been made to the first draft.

Specific comments –

Line 109-110 – ‘…vulnerable region to drought due to low rainfall intensities’. Rainfall intensity does not cause drought – absence of moisture does. Please take care with words used.

Line 122 – ‘…slopes of 5-55% [46].’  Slopes at the lower end of this range would hardly be classified as problematic for cropping – the range quoted is too wide to be meaningful.

Section 2.3.4 – this sub-section needs basic information to be omitted and any discussion points removed (or transferred to another section in the paper).

Figure 3(d) is not referred to in the text. As slope appears as a key variable it is worthwhile to retain this part of the figure. It could be referred to in the title of Table 1.

e.g. Table 1. The P factor values for land use types with their respective slope classes (%) (Figure 3(d).

Table 1 – the land use types need to be indicated under each (please see pdf)

Lines 240 to 272 – this needs to be severely condensed and placed in appropriate positions within the paper. Part is general background/context in Rwanda, part is Discussion – and it does not fit beneath the heading of ‘2.3.5 Support practice (P) factor’ as part of describing RUSLE data inputs. I suggest a subsection titled ‘2.4 Estimated soil loss and social drivers’ which could appear after (current) line 272. Figure 5 needs to appear as a summary of the LULC and RUSLE data sets used, before a possible section 2.4.

In subsection 3.2 – it is unclear whether comparisons between (e.g.) forestland and the annual mean refer to forestland compared with all other erosion-prone areas (i.e. including or excluding forestland from the mean). If forestland is included in the mean, then you should recalculate the mean for all erosion-prone areas minus forestlands for a correct comparison (i.e. you cannot compare the mean of one variable with a group mean that also includes that variable).

Table 3 has been peculiarly placed but I assume that will be corrected in the final version.

Data used to plot Figure 8 does not appear in the draft version of the paper. The reason for mentioning this is because Figure 8(a) has a single outlier (high mean soil loss and medium range poverty (%)). What would the r value be if the outlier were removed? And what is the explanation for the presence of the outlier?

Paragraphs from line 359 to 385 would benefit from substituting a table which summarized the erosion rates reported by others in relation to the present study. This would be a simple way of removing excess text.

Lines 418 to 422 – it is unclear what the relationship is between HH use of fertilizers and poverty. A plot of this relationship (if any) in Figure 9 would assist in providing evidence for the statement made in the text.

Subsection 4.2 – the introductory statements need pruning – see pdf for suggestions. In Figures and sometimes in the text, the word ‘extend’ is used instead of ‘extent’ – please check and correct throughout.

Subsection 4.3 – this does not add anything new and should be deleted. If there are concerns about the RUSLE methodology (most of which are well-known) then they should appear earlier and in a very summary form.

Lines 526-529 – it is not desirable to include in the Conclusion any information/comments which have not previously been dealt with in the text. Either add something about organic farming (a sentence in the text would do) or re-word the final sentence.

Table headings (problems, lack of clarity):

Table 1A. add after …..2000 and 2015 (‘extent’ refers to total area of erosion-prone lands) –  assuming that is what ‘extendt’ is referring to

Table 2A. [possible title] Estimated mean soil loss and mean slope per district of erosion-prone areas experiencing LULCC between 2000 and 2015.  

Comment – beyond this suggested re-wording I cannot assist, as the table is not self-explanatory and very unclear.

‘Area experiencing LULCC’ presumably refers to the entire table.

‘Mean soil loss 2015’ presumably means changes in those same areas as the ones listed under ‘Area experiencing LULCC’ (also presumably for 2000).

Please re-design the table so that what you are intending is clear.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to reviewer #2

(x) Extensive editing of English language and style required 
( ) Moderate English changes required 
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required 
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

General –

Various papers have been published on soil erosion and its control in Rwanda with most concentrating on a particular region or land use type. This paper takes a broad national approach which can be justified given the paper’s objectives and the size of area being considered. In its present form the paper needs substantial revision to clarify arguments, remove redundant descriptions/information, and ensure that wording conveys the authors’ intentions. It could then be re-submitted.

Response: Thank you very much for the constructive comments and suggestions that have helped us in improving the readership of our manuscript. We have learned a lot from your reviews and have taken it into consideration in the present and our future works, we have made some improvements in the revised manuscript.

Concerns –

Detailed background descriptions of Rwanda are probably needed for the reader to gain a general understanding of biophysical and human aspects of the country, but such detail is not necessary when dealing with well-known erosion models like RUSLE. I have made numerous suggested changes on the draft in order to minimize unnecessary wording, with the overall suggestion that the paper retain information about the specific data sources and manipulations used (but eliminate excessive wordiness about matters that are general knowledge).

Response: Thank you very much for the complement, we really appreciated your positive encouraging comments and suggestions. We have made some improvements and eliminated the unnecessary sentences throughout the revised manuscript.

The number of references (104) is more than most papers would require. Please check whether all these are essential, along with ensuring that the correct bracketed number appears for each reference. (My strong preference is for the Harvard system which automatically reduces errors and allows for easy identification of alphabetically arranged papers, but journals prefer numbers as they save space….)

Response: Thank you once more for the complement, we have deleted some of the unnecessary references in the revised manuscript.

English language expression needs attention. An annotated pdf is attached, with suggested changes. Explanation - This feedback method was used in preference creating a written list of proposed alterations or acting as an editing reviewer making changes for authors. Throughout I have tried to reduce repetition in the text, but examples still remain. It would be sensible to check for repetition once amendments have been made to the first draft.

Response: We really appreciated your tireless efforts in improving our manuscript, we have made great modifications in the revised manuscript. In addition, we have invited a native English speaker to check the language and grammar of the manuscript.   

Specific comments –

Line 109-110 – ‘…vulnerable region to drought due to low rainfall intensities’. Rainfall intensity does not cause drought – absence of moisture does. Please take care with words used.

Response: We appreciated your valuable comments and suggestions, we have made corrections in the revised manuscript (P3 L120-124).

Line 122 – ‘…slopes of 5-55% [46].’  Slopes at the lower end of this range would hardly be classified as problematic for cropping – the range quoted is too wide to be meaningful.

Response: Thank you very much for your pertinent comments, we have eliminated those irrelevant sentences in the revised manuscript.

Section 2.3.4 – this sub-section needs basic information to be omitted and any discussion points removed (or transferred to another section in the paper).

Response: We greatly appreciated your comments and suggestions, changes made accordingly.

Figure 3(d) is not referred to in the text. As slope appears as a key variable it is worthwhile to retain this part of the figure. It could be referred to in the title of Table 1. E.g. Table 1. The P factor values for land use types with their respective slope classes (%) (Figure 3(d). Table 1 – the land use types need to be indicated under each (please see pdf)

Response: Thank you once more for the valuable suggestion, we have referred to figure 3(d) and indicated the different land-use types in table 2 of the revised manuscript (P7 L225).

Lines 240 to 272 – this needs to be severely condensed and placed in appropriate positions within the paper. Part is general background/context in Rwanda, part is Discussion – and it does not fit beneath the heading of ‘2.3.5 Support practice (P) factor’ as part of describing RUSLE data inputs. I suggest a subsection titled ‘2.4 Estimated soil loss and social drivers’ which could appear after (current) line 272. Figure 5 needs to appear as a summary of the LULC and RUSLE data sets used, before a possible section 2.4.

Response: Thank you for the constructive comments and suggestions, we have summarized, shifted and integrated those sentences into the introductory and discussion sections of the revised manuscript (P2 L69-70 & L72-76), and (P14 L368-375). In addition, a sub-section title was added in the methodology section of the revised manuscript (P9 L233).

In subsection 3.2 – it is unclear whether comparisons between (e.g.) forestland and the annual mean refer to forestland compared with all other erosion-prone areas (i.e. including or excluding forestland from the mean). If forestland is included in the mean, then you should recalculate the mean for all erosion-prone areas minus forestlands for a correct comparison (i.e. you cannot compare the mean of one variable with a group mean that also includes that variable).

Response: We greatly appreciated your valuable comments and suggestions, we have eliminated those confusing sentences in the revised manuscript.

P12 L345: Table 3 has been peculiarly placed but I assume that will be corrected in the final version.

Response: Thank you for the pertinent suggestion, due to the changes in the review report, we have replaced table 3 with table 4 and shifted it to (P10 L278) in the revised manuscript.

Data used to plot Figure 8 does not appear in the draft version of the paper. The reason for mentioning this is because Figure 8(a) has a single outlier (high mean soil loss and medium range poverty (%)). What would the r value be if the outlier were removed? And what is the explanation for the presence of the outlier?

Response: We greatly appreciate your comments and suggestions, the reason for existence of the outlier is that; our study is a nationwide campaign that comprises of different topographic landscapes in Rwanda characterized by hills and mountains. The findings of our study indicated that the increase in soil loss in Rwanda was primarily attributed by the steep slopes, therefore, the areas with steep slopes are likely subjected to high mean soil loss. For this reason, poverty (%) could be medium in the areas with steep slopes. Definitely, the r value will be very high if the outlier is removed, but we could not do so because we may end up overestimating the relationship between soil erosion and poverty (%) which may simply be interpreted as biasness by the anticipated readers of our works.

P13 L359–385: Paragraphs from line 359 to 385 would benefit from substituting a table which summarized the erosion rates reported by others in relation to the present study. This would be a simple way of removing excess text.

Response: Thank you very much for the useful suggestions, we have summarized the paragraphs in line 359 to 385 and presented the previously published literature in table 5 of the revised manuscript (P12 L310).

P12 L418–422: It is unclear what the relationship is between HH use of fertilizers and poverty. A plot of this relationship (if any) in Figure 9 would assist in providing evidence for the statement made in the text.

Response: Thank you very much for the valuable suggestion, we did not analyze the relationship between HH use of fertilizers and poverty due to the scarcity of literature on the HH use of fertilizers. However, in our forthcoming planned intensive socioeconomic surveys, we are going to focus more on how HH use of fertilizers and poverty are interrelated.

P15 L444: Subsection 4.2 – the introductory statements need pruning – see pdf for suggestions. In Figures and sometimes in the text, the word ‘extend’ is used instead of ‘extent’ – please check and correct throughout.

Response: Thank you once more for the constructive comments and suggestions, we have made changes in the revised manuscript and improved it greatly.

P16 L485-488, P17 L489-508: Subsection 4.3 – this does not add anything new and should be deleted. If there are concerns about the RUSLE methodology (most of which are well-known) then they should appear earlier and in a very summary form.

Response: We appreciated your pertinent suggestions; we are sorry for the inconveniences. We have eliminated those unnecessary sentences.

P17 L526–529: it is not desirable to include in the Conclusion any information/comments which have not previously been dealt with in the text. Either add something about organic farming (a sentence in the text would do) or re-word the final sentence.

Response: Thank you for the valuable suggestion, we have removed the irrelevant sentences and added some information on organic farming in the revised manuscript (P14 L375-380).

Table headings (problems, lack of clarity):

P18 L546–549:  Table 1A. add after …..2000 and 2015 (‘extent’ refers to total area of erosion-prone lands) –  assuming that is what ‘extendt’ is referring to. Table 2A. [possible title] Estimated mean soil loss and mean slope per district of erosion-prone areas experiencing LULCC between 2000 and 2015.  Comment – beyond this suggested re-wording I cannot assist, as the table is not self-explanatory and very unclear. Area experiencing LULCC’ presumably refers to the entire table. ‘Mean soil loss 2015’ presumably means changes in those same areas as the ones listed under ‘Area experiencing LULCC’ (also presumably for 2000). Please re-design the table so that what you are intending is clear.

Response: We are grateful to your valuable comments and suggestions, we are very sorry for the confusion. We have now provided clear headings for the tables and further presented the estimated mean soil loss and mean slope per district of erosion-prone areas experiencing LULCC between 2000 and 2015, and re-designed table A2 into two tables (A2 and A3).  

P1 L17: applying

Response: Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed it accordingly in the revised manuscript (P1 L18). 

P1 L18: using

Response: Thanks for your useful suggestion, revisions made accordingly in the revised manuscript (P1 L19).

P1 L19: Delete

Response: Deleted accordingly

P1 L21: respectively

Response: Changes made as suggested by the reviewer (P1 L22) in the revised manuscript.

P1 L23: The, of

Response: Improvements made in the revised manuscript (P1 L24)

P1 L24: changing

Response: Thank you for the helpful suggestion, we have changed the sentences in the revised manuscript (P1 L24)

P1 L25: for, converting

Response: Changes made in the revised manuscript (P1 L25-26) as suggested.

P1 L28: and especially

Response: We are grateful to your useful suggestion; we have made substitution with the suggested sentences in the revised manuscript (P1 L29)

P1 L29: soil, for

Response: We appreciated your valuable suggestion; we have made improvements in the revised manuscript (P1 L29-30)

P1 L35: soil conservation

Response: Thank you for the suggestion, changes made in the revised manuscript (P1 L35).

P1 L39: recent, that a

Response: Thanks for the suggestion, changes made accordingly in the revised manuscript (P1 L39).

P1 L43: giving

Response: Thank you so much for the constructive suggestion, we have revised it (P1 L43).

P2 L47: Transported

Response: We appreciated your helpful suggestions, we have made the minor required changes in the revised manuscript (P2 L47-94).

P3 L95: fix changing font size and line spacing to be consistent

Response: Thank you for the comments and suggestions, we have edited the font size and fixed the spacing in figure in the revised manuscript (P3 L106).

P3 L100: delete, the

Response: We really appreciated your valuable comments and suggestions, we have deleted the irrelevant sentences and made changes accordingly in the revised manuscript (P3 L111-124).

P4 L132: erosion prone

Response: Thank you once more for the useful comments and suggestions, we have removed the unnecessary sentences and incorporated the required changes as suggested (P4 L142-153).

P4 L146 & L149: ecosystems, the, arising and empirically-based

Response: Thank you for the suggestions, we have provided the required changes in the revised manuscript.

P5 L177: 62?? need to check references

Response: Thank you for the pertinent comment, we have checked and confirmed the correct reference in the revised manuscript (P5 L183-184).

P9 L277: Figure 5

Response: We have made the required edits in figure 5 of the revised manuscript (P8 L232)

P9 L286-287: during which different national policies and programs were put in place. These were intended to ensure environmental sustainability through.

Response: We are grateful to your useful suggestions, we have considered it in the revised manuscript.

P14 L386-424: both years

Response: Thank you once more for the useful comments and suggestions, we have removed the unnecessary sentences and incorporated the required changes (P13 L320-362), and throughout in the revised manuscript.

P15 L436-437: The recorded, 2000 and 2015 but registered the largest decline in mean soil loss. Only the Buberuka highlands had increased soil erosion (Table A1).

Response: We are thankful to your valuable suggestions, we have deleted the irrelevant sentences. In addition, we revised those sentences (P14 L363-367).

P15 L468-469: delete, recorded a continuation of high, rates

Response: We appreciated your helpful suggestions; we have improved those sentences in the revised manuscript (P14 L401).

P17 L514-529: Though, delete, techniques

Response: Thank you once more for the useful comments and suggestions, we have removed the unnecessary sentences in the conclusion section and incorporated the required changes (P16 L428-443) in the revised manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have improved the earlier version of the paper by following the reviewers’ suggestions. The paper now provides a reasonable overview of soil loss conditions (using RUSLE) at a national scale, and the inclusion of more terracing material provides greater justification for the recommendations in the Conclusion.

Although this was not mentioned in comments on the first version, a sentence or two indicating the extent to which water erosion in Rwanda is dominated almost entirely by rill and interrill erosion would be useful (e.g. Is gully erosion common? Are there any problems with dispersible soils or tunnel erosion? Are many hillsides subject to landsliding?). If this information could be mentioned, preferably in the Introduction, it would provide a broader ‘water erosion’ context for the paper and validate the RUSLE approach adopted.

Various minor English expression issues remain (especially with commas appearing where not necessary) but I will only list below items needing correction in order to clarify the meaning. Note that most of these appear in the ‘red’ added text.

Line 28 – ‘was significantly correlated with….’

Line 43 – ‘…resulting in…’

Line 69 – ‘…largely dependent on…’

Line 73 – ‘…support of subsidized fertilizer prices.’     Remove ‘to boost agricultural productivity.’

Line 75 – ‘…fertilizers, increasing…’

Lines 82-88 – this sentence is too long and convoluted – re-word, and make two sentences to clarify

Line 273 – ‘…seven times…’

Line 316 – delete the comma after ‘Table 4’ – assists with meaning of this sentence (see note for next line)

Line 317-318 – ‘…in the region, suggests that their results may be overestimates, an issue previously highlighted…..’

Line 319 – ‘…Table 4 are in…..’

Line 320 – ‘…cropland and are in agreement….’

Lines 333-339 – this is a complicated listing which needs to be condensed to relevant observations (rather than describing what appears in Figure 7). The last sentence of this paragraph should remain – it is a useful observation.

Line 366 – ‘…districts experiencing…’

Line 367 – ‘…recognized as enhancing high crop yields in the short-term…’

Line 368 – ‘…but not being effective in the long-run since their excessive use causes…’

Line 370 – ‘…indicated they still use organic…’

Line 371 – ‘…when they adopted…’

Line 372 – delete ‘and desist’

Line 374-5 – ‘…Because they are readily available, less expensive and sustain soil fertility status…’

Line 376 – delete ‘the anticipated’

Lines 377-379 – please re-word to clarify

Line 386 – ‘..which may give rise to concerns socio-economic conditions of society.’ This part of the sentence is unclear – please re-word

Line 417 – ‘…facilitated improvement of soil management in the eastern….’

Line 418 – ‘…narrowing the spacing between terraces) was reported…’

Line 430 – ‘…terraced landscapes guarantees an increase…’

Line 425 – ‘…areas are important tools…’

Line 459 – ‘…(“extent” refers…’

Author Response

Responses to the reviewer’s comments

(x) I would not like to sign my review report

( ) I would like to sign my review report English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required

( ) Moderate English changes required

(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the earlier version of the paper by following the reviewers’ suggestions. The paper now provides a reasonable overview of soil loss conditions (using RUSLE) at a national scale, and the inclusion of more terracing material provides greater justification for the recommendations in the Conclusion.

Although this was not mentioned in comments on the first version, a sentence or two indicating the extent to which water erosion in Rwanda is dominated almost entirely by rill and interrill erosion would be useful (e.g. Is gully erosion common? Are there any problems with dispersible soils or tunnel erosion? Are many hillsides subject to landsliding?). If this information could be mentioned, preferably in the Introduction, it would provide a broader ‘water erosion’ context for the paper and validate the RUSLE approach adopted.

Response: We are very grateful to your constructive comments and valuable suggestions for our manuscript. We have provided additional literature in the introductory section of the revised manuscript (P2 L61-65). Gully erosion is common in the western, northern and southern parts of Rwanda that are often susceptible to landslides due to the steep topographic landscapes and high rainfall distribution pattern. However, we do not have knowledge on tunnel erosion and its extent in Rwanda.

Various minor English expression issues remain (especially with commas appearing where not necessary) but I will only list below items needing correction in order to clarify the meaning. Note that most of these appear in the ‘red’ added text.

Response: We are very grateful to your pertinent comments, we have checked and corrected some of the grammatical errors.

Line 28 – ‘was significantly correlated with….’

Response: Thank you very much. We have revised it accordingly (P1 L28)

Line 43 – ‘…resulting in…’

Response: We are thankful to your useful suggestion, we have included it in the revised manuscript (P1 L43).

Line 69 – ‘…largely dependent on…’

Response: Thank you once more for the suggestions, changes made accordingly (P2 L71 of the revised manuscript).

Line 73 – ‘…support of subsidized fertilizer prices.’ Remove ‘to boost agricultural productivity.’

Response: Thank you very much, we have made changes accordingly (P2 L75 of the revised manuscript).

Line 75 – ‘…fertilizers, increasing…’

Response: We are grateful to your useful suggestions, we have improved these sentences in the revised manuscript (P2 L77).

Lines 82-88 – this sentence is too long and convoluted – re-word, and make two sentences to clarify

Response: We are very sorry for the confusion, we have revised those sentences and separated them into two statements in the revised manuscript (P2 L84-87).

Line 273 – ‘…seven times…’

Response: We appreciate your constructive suggestion, changes made accordingly (P10 L273).

Line 316 – delete the comma after ‘Table 4’ – assists with meaning of this sentence (see note for next line)

Response: Thank you once again, deleted accordingly.

Line 317-318 – ‘…in the region, suggests that their results may be overestimates, an issue previously highlighted…..’

Response: We really appreciate your constructive suggestions, we have improved these sentences in the revised manuscript (P13 L317-318).

Line 319 – ‘…Table 4 are in…..’

Response: Thank you very much, changes made accordingly (P13 L319).

Line 320 – ‘…cropland and are in agreement….’

Response: We greatly appreciate your helpful suggestions, we have improved those sentences in the revised manuscript (P13 L320).

Lines 333-339 – this is a complicated listing which needs to be condensed to relevant observations (rather than describing what appears in Figure 7). The last sentence of this paragraph should remain – it is a useful observation.

Response: We are sorry for the confusion, we have now summarized it in the revised manuscript and the last sentence of the paragraph was retained (P13 L333-338).

Line 366 – ‘…districts experiencing…’

Response: Thanks once again, we have corrected these sentences in the revised manuscript (P14 L365).

Line 367 – ‘…recognized as enhancing high crop yields in the short-term…’ & Line 368 – ‘…but not being effective in the long-run since their excessive use causes…’

Response: We are grateful to your suggestion, improvements made accordingly in the revised manuscript (P14 L366-367).

Line 370 – ‘…indicated they still use organic…’

Response: Thanks for the valuable suggestion, we have revised it accordingly (P14 L369 of the revised manuscript).

Line 371 – ‘…when they adopted…’

Response: We appreciate your pertinent suggestion, we have considered it in the revised manuscript (P14 L370).

Line 372 – delete ‘and desist’

Response: Sorry for the inconvenience, we have eliminated these unnecessary sentences in the revised manuscript.

Line 374-5 – ‘…Because they are readily available, less expensive and sustain soil fertility status…’

Response: Thank you once more for the suggestions, we have incorporated the changes in the revised manuscript (P14 L373-374).

Line 376 – delete ‘the anticipated’

Response: Thank you once more, deleted accordingly.

Lines 377-379 – please re-word to clarify

Response: Thank you so much for the comment, we have revised these sentences (P14 L375-378).

Line 386 – ‘..which may give rise to concerns socio-economic conditions of society.’ This part of the sentence is unclear – please re-word

Response: Sorry for the confusion, we have revised these sentences (P14 L384-385 of the revised manuscript).

Line 417 – ‘…facilitated improvement of soil management in the eastern….’

Response: Thank you very much for the suggestions, changes made accordingly (P16 L416-417 of the revised manuscript).

Line 418 – ‘…narrowing the spacing between terraces) was reported…’

Response: We greatly appreciate your helpful suggestion, we have improved these sentences in the revised manuscript (P16 L417-418).

Line 430 – ‘…terraced landscapes guarantees an increase…’

Response: Thank you very much for the suggestion, we have made changes accordingly (P16 L419-420 of the revised manuscript).

Line 425 – ‘…areas are important tools…’

Response: We are thankful to your suggestions, we have made improvements in the revised manuscript (P16 L425).

Line 459 – ‘…(“extent” refers…’

Response: Thank you once more for the useful suggestion, we have taken it into consideration in the revised manuscript (P17 L461).