Effects of Soil and Water Conservation Measures on Runoff and Sediment Yield in Red Soil Slope Farmland under Natural Rainfall
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article Effects of Soil and Water Conservation Measures on Runoff and Sediment Yield in Red Soil Slope Farmland under Natural Rainfall (article ID 764296) presents the results of a study that deals with the effects of soil and water conservation measures on runoff and sediment production on red soil slope farmland under natural rainfall conditions. The experiment brings some new insights into soil erosion measure and how to mitigate it in a sustainable way.
The manuscript template is a bit outdated; we are in 2020. This is obviously a resubmission from another journal, as the references are not formatted according to Sustainability instructions for authors.
The overall English of the manuscript is good, maybe with some minor spelling errors and some sloppy expressions, which I have detailed below.
Introduction section: the authors present directly the case of China. This section should be more detailed and thoroughly reviewed. Firstly, the authors should refer to the soil erosion problem globally, then refer to China. Where else in the world is red soil? From an article referring to soil erosion, significant names are missing from the references, and this should be corrected (e.g. Poesen, Nyssen, Boardman, Panagos, etc,). Within the introduction, the following references should be added:
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.124
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.11.018
- https://doi.org/10.3390/w10081077
L11-17: you should remove this part of the abstract, maybe towards the start of the introduction section; the abstract should start with “this paper….”
L20: at the end of the sentence you should add your study area location
L47: references should be as Arabic numbers, and not Roman [1], [2], etc…please, correct for the entire manuscript
L55: this reference is very outdated, please find a new one; I also think that from 2003 the 800 million number has significantly increased
L124: at the end of this sentence, it is better to put a “;”, rather than a full stop.
L129-130: maybe it is better, in order to not repeat the name of the entire experimental park, to use its initials (JESTPSWC) for the rest of the manuscript
L133: I think you meant 80 km2
L130-136: this sentence has 6 rows; break it up into 2-3 smaller sentences. You should also add some references for the rainfall data
L136: when you have “m” (as altitude), you should refer as m a.s.l. (meters above sea level)
L140: again, add references
Figure 1: please add some WGS84 coordinates for all 3 maps
L143: you should add “15 km west from Poyang Lake”
L174: what does “kg/mu” stands for? Please, specify
L177: “mL” comes from millilitre?
L183: offer more details about the particle size analyser
Table 1: why the asterisk after most of the values in the table? Give an explanation as a footnote of the table
L375: please, rephrase
L385: delete “error! Bookmark not defined”
The discussion section is good. However, you should compare your results with studies from other geographical areas or even from China (there’s plenty of references out there). It will give your paper a broader meaning.
References: please, adhere to the Sustainability journal reference style. Delete the i, ii, iii, etc.
Journal names are abbreviated, and the use of DOI is highly indicated!!
Good luck with the revision!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This study is an interesting and important analysis of soil erosion and its potential controls for sloping landscapes. The methods used in this study are good and the conclusions have beneficial results for sustainable farming practices in China and abroad. The abstract and introduction and literature review sections would benefit from a moderate revision.
The title needs to be changed slightly. It is too wordy and needs location of study.
The abstract is too general/generic in relation to the first few sentences and could be shortened.
Abstract lines 18-20 need a site/location designation.
Line 50 of text: define the properties of the red soil and define the region soil and fluvial dynamics in more detail.
Line 52: need rainfall amounts and farming intensity data Land use land cover statistics.
Line 65 obvious assertion need to establish more regional specific information rather than discussing known exogenic process.
Line 73: what is this the preferred/widely used method in region, contour plowing or traditional tillage?
Line 87: end of this paragraph needs a specific description of what this study will investigate and methods used. needs research statement/thesis/hypothesis.
Line 118: need to expand this section and add more citations.
Line 126: incomplete sentence. Re-write for clarity.
Line 163: point of clarification in needed as to whether this was built into the existing environment or if the soil layers were added to the concrete construction. the issues would be if artificial soil layers it might not have natural compactness which would have more resistance and natural sheer strength.
When discussing straw-mulching, a point of clarification would be what would be considered the optimal amount of straw to soil ratio. Is there a minimum and or maximum length of the stray strands that would produce better or worse results? Is this process of straw mulching used in any farms around the agricultural region?
Line 385: fix citation issue.
The methods and conclusions are good as is the significance of this study. One addition to the analysis would be to bring in some additional analysis of the current farming practice widely used in the West known as no-till farming, or, more officially, “conservation tillage.” The spirit of the plowing the psyllium husks/fibers back into the soil is closely aligned with the findings of this study as conservation tillage is used to reduce soil erosion (wind and water) as well as re-enter nutrients into the soil before planting.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled “Effects of Soil and Water Conservation Measures on Runoff and Sediment Yield in Red Soil Slope Farmland under Natural Rainfall” written by Xiaoan Chen and co-authors presents quite interesting experiments on runoff characteristics. The impact of soil and different land covers on runoff characteristics is analyzed. The presented research is quite advanced. Such a study is important and the results obtained may be applied in different scientific areas and practical works. The paper is well written and structured. In my opinion, it should be published. However, a few corrections are necessary. These are listed below.
Main problems:
|
Lines 120 – 126 |
It's not clear what is the purpose of the research. I would expect formulation such as "the purpose is ..." or "the aim is ...". Additionally, I would like to exactly know what is innovation expected. The sentence "Provide a basis for ... " does not explain much. |
|
Lines 114 – 116 |
I would like to know if “the effects of soil erosion control and soil and water conservation measures on the composition of eroded sediment particles in different regions” are studied here. If yes, it should be stressed in the purpose of the paper. |
|
Lines 119 – 120 |
Are “the rules and mechanisms of sand blocking by soil and water conservation measures” studied here? It should be also stressed in the purpose of the paper. |
|
Conclusions |
This section is written like a summary of the conducted research. I would expect something more here. I suggest writing what is the importance and meaning of the findings, what is a possible future application, what are limitations and needs for further investigations. |
Minor corrections
|
Line 109 |
Michaelides et al. |
|
Lines 139 – 140 |
I think it could be better to show the sieve curve. |
|
Figure 1 |
In my opinion, the maps should be denoted a), b) and c) and described in the caption. Additionally, in the smaller scale maps (located in the bottom) there should be some background maps. |
|
|
Quotations are not consistent with MDPI standards. Additionally, References should be re-formated. There is the double numbering of each item, e.g. 1. i, 2. ii, etc.. |
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
You have accordingly addressed my comments and observations and you did the appropriate modifications.
However, referring strictly to the format of the cited references in text, they are not to be written as superscripts!! They should be written as the main text [1], [2]. The references section - here the journal names should be abbreviated and reference 4 is wrong (that is not the last name of the author), correct is Nicu, I.C. 2018. Is....
Please, correct the references accordingly.
Kind regards.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
