Root Traits and Erosion Resistance of Three Endemic Grasses for Estuarine Sand Drift Control
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please also see the attachment.
Response to Reviewer #1
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1652876
We sincerely appreciate the reviewer for the constructive comments and valuable suggestions, which improve the quality of our manuscript. Our point-to-point responses are described below. Meanwhile, the revisions are marked in red in the revised manuscript (sustainability-1652876R).
Reviewer’s comments and suggestions:
Point 1: Line 9 to 11 and 37 to 38 are the same text.
Response 1: Thanks to the reviewer for the constructive comments. The abstract has been revised in the manuscript accordingly. (Page 1 Lines L9-11)
Point 2: Line 120: the wind tunnel was set up utilizing an iron framework covered over with polycarbonate sheets (500 cm × 90 cm × 120 cm, L×W×H). Is it covered in all sides and top?
Response 2: Thanks to the reviewer for the valuable comments. Yes, it is covered in all sides and top except the rear end. This has been revised in the manuscript accordingly. (Page 4 Line 142)
Point 3: The soil erosion by water or wind is a function of the land slope. In in your experiment the effect of land slope is not considered. It is good to show the level of erosion with respect to different slope class.
Response 3: Thanks to the reviewer for the comments. Since this experiment was focused on the wind erosion of sandy soils of riverbed at the estuarine area, the land slope was not considered. The riverbed was flat during dry season. These have been described in materials and methods section of the revised manuscript accordingly. (Page 4 Lines 154-156)
Point 4: Next to this what is the soil type/property of your experiment site? You have to show us the detail soil property of the sample site. We can’t talk about erosion without detail soil property. I think your experiment has missed this basic issues.
Response 4: Thanks to the reviewer for the constructive comments. The soil type is sandy soil with mean dry weight of 16.2 kN m-3 and water content of 10.2 The soils contain 93.1% sand, 5.7% silt and 1.2% gravel. The chemical characteristics of the soil were pH 8.5, electrical conductivity 0.06 ds m-1, total nitrogen 0.04%, soluble phosphorus 18.0 mg kg-1, soluble potassium 35.0 mg kg-1 and organic matter 0.26 mg kg-1. These have been described in materials and methods section of the revised manuscript accordingly. (Page 2 Lines 82-84)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled "Root Traits and Erosion Resistance of Three Endemic Grasses for Estuarine Sand Drift Control" has been reviewed. The aim of this paper is to explore the root traits, biotechnical properties, and wind erosion resistance of the three estuarine grasses. The manuscript is well written and contains important results that can be useful for decision-makers to make decisions consistent with sustainable development. Some general and minor comments are provided below that should be answered carefully by the authors before further investigation.
-Introduction: while this section is well organized, there are several relevant papers that are not reported in the literature. Among them, the following references can be used for comparing and validating the results of the present study with those of other researchers:
1- Assessing Riverbank Erosion and Livelihood Resilience Using Traditional Approaches in Northern Bangladesh, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/2348
2- Enhancement of river bank shear strength parameters using Vetiver grass root system, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12517-018-3999-z
-Materials and methods: while the authors have provided a full description of the study area, a map showing the location of the study area can help the reader to better imagine the study site.
- Page 3 Lines 110-112: It is said that “For each species, 100 root samples from the middle section were checked: 66 root sections of A. formosana, 81 root sections of P. australis and 76 root sections of S. spontaneum.” Is there any reason why the numbers of root sections are different for the three species studied?
-Results: Page 4 Lines 142-145: this part along with Figure 1 can be moved to the materials and methods section.
-Page 4 Lines 148-164: the authors have provided useful information regarding the growth traits of the studied species. However, nothing can be found in the Results section dealing with the lateral extension of the plants’ root system. It is important from the practical point of view as it determines the density of the plants that should be used for the complete reinforcement of the soil.
-Page 4 Lines 161-164: this is one of the cases that the authors can validate and compare their results with those of previous studies.
-Page 5 Table 1: The authors are strongly recommended to use Metric units. For, example the total root length (TRL) values can be reported in m instead of cm for better understanding. Also, root biomass (Rb) and shoot biomass (Sb) values can be reported in g instead of kg.
-Page 8 Table 5: The authors have reported the mean tensile strength for the three studied species. While these results are interesting for protecting the riverbank against erosion, there are some other alternatives with higher tensile strengths. For example, the mean tensile strength for the vetiver grass root system is 75 MPa. A convincing discussion must be provided by the authors to clarify why one should use these three species instead of other alternatives such as vetiver grass for riverbank protection purposes.
Author Response
Please also see the attachment.
Response to Reviewer #2
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1652876
Reviewer’s comments and suggestions:
The manuscript entitled "Root Traits and Erosion Resistance of Three Endemic Grasses for Estuarine Sand Drift Control" has been reviewed. The aim of this paper is to explore the root traits, biotechnical properties, and wind erosion resistance of the three estuarine grasses. The manuscript is well written and contains important results that can be useful for decision-makers to make decisions consistent with sustainable development. Some general and minor comments are provided below that should be answered carefully by the authors before further investigation.
Response: We would like to express our sincerely appreciation to the reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions, which improve the quality of our manuscript. Our point-to-point responses to the comments are described below. Meanwhile, the revisions are marked in red in the revised manuscript (sustainability-1652876R).
Point 1: Introduction: while this section is well organized, there are several relevant papers that are not reported in the literature. Among them, the following references can be used for comparing and validating the results of the present study with those of other researchers:
1- Assessing Riverbank Erosion and Livelihood Resilience Using Traditional Approaches in Northern Bangladesh, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/2348
2- Enhancement of river bank shear strength parameters using Vetiver grass root system, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12517-018-3999-z
Response 1: Thanks to the reviewer for the constructive comments and valuable suggestions. The suggested references have been read carefully and cited (Mamun et al., 2022; Hamidifar et al., 2018) in the manuscript. (Page 1 Lines 43-44; Page 2 Lines 62-64)
Point 2: Materials and methods: while the authors have provided a full description of the study area, a map showing the location of the study area can help the reader to better imagine the study site.
Response 2: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive comment. A map of field location and sample plot has been added in the revised manuscript accordingly. (Page 3 Lines 94-97)
Point 3: Page 3 Lines 110-112: It is said that “For each species, 100 root samples from the middle section were checked: 66 root sections of A. formosana, 81 root sections of P. australis and 76 root sections of S. spontaneum.” Is there any reason why the numbers of root sections are different for the three species studied?
Response 3: Thanks to the reviewer for the valuable comments. The description has been revised as “Fore each species, 100 root samples were tested and only 66 root sections of A. formosana, 81 root sections of P. australis and 76 root sections of S. spontaneum ruptured at the middle section”. These has been corrected in the revised manuscript accordingly. (Page 4 Lines 129-132)
Point 4: Results: Page 4 Lines 142-145: this part along with Figure 1 can be moved to the materials and methods section.
Response 4: Thanks to the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. This part along with Figure 1 have been moved to the materials and methods section in the revised manuscript accordingly. (Page 3 Lines 99-104)
Point 5: Page 4 Lines 148-164: the authors have provided useful information regarding the growth traits of the studied species. However, nothing can be found in the Results section dealing with the lateral extension of the plants’ root system. It is important from the practical point of view as it determines the density of the plants that should be used for the complete reinforcement of the soil.
Response 5: Thanks to the reviewer for the constructive comments. Yes, the lateral extension of the plants is important in soil reinforcement. The lateral root extension has been described in the revised manuscript accordingly. (Page 5 Lines 184-185)
Point 6: Page 4 Lines 161-164: this is one of the cases that the authors can validate and compare their results with those of previous studies.
Response 6: Thanks to the reviewer for the valuable comments. This has been described in discussion section of the revised manuscript accordingly. (Page 12 Lines 385-356)
Point 7: Page 5 Table 1: The authors are strongly recommended to use Metric units. For, example the total root length (TRL) values can be reported in m instead of cm for better understanding. Also, root biomass (Rb) and shoot biomass (Sb) values can be reported in g instead of kg.
Response 7: Thanks to the reviewer for the valuable comments. This has been revised in Table 1 of the revised manuscript accordingly. (Page 6 Lines 189-190)
Point 8: Page 8 Table 5: The authors have reported the mean tensile strength for the three studied species. While these results are interesting for protecting the riverbank against erosion, there are some other alternatives with higher tensile strengths. For example, the mean tensile strength for the vetiver grass root system is 75 MPa. A convincing discussion must be provided by the authors to clarify why one should use these three species instead of other alternatives such as vetiver grass for riverbank protection purposes.
Response 8: Thanks to the reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions. The reason for using these three species instead of other alternatives such as vetiver grass is because the exotic vetiver grass may have some impacts on local estuarine ecosystem. This has been explained in discussion section of the revised manuscript accordingly. (Page 13 Lines 395-397)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper presents an excellent topic and potentially powerful approach to evaluate and to assess wind erosion based on the potential of three plants (i.e, Giant reed (Arundo formosana), common reed (Phragmite australis) and the wild sugarcane (Saccharum spontaneum). But, some comments should be addressed before publication.
- Abstract, please try to keep the first paragraph short – I suggest rewrite lines L9-14.
- Introduction, please provide more recent references regarding the Root Traits and Erosion Resistance in other parts of the world, in the introduction part.
Good luck.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please also see the attachment.
Response to Reviewer #3
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1652876
Reviewer’s comments and suggestions:
The paper presents an excellent topic and potentially powerful approach to evaluate and to assess wind erosion based on the potential of three plants (i.e, Giant reed (Arundo formosana), common reed (Phragmite australis) and the wild sugarcane (Saccharum spontaneum). But, some comments should be addressed before publication.
Response: We greatly appreciate the reviewer for the constructive comments and valuable suggestions, which improve the quality of our manuscript. Our point-to-point responses are described below. Meanwhile, the revisions are marked in red in the revised manuscript (sustainability-1652876R).
Point 1: Abstract, please try to keep the first paragraph short – I suggest rewrite lines L9-14.
Response 1: Thanks to the reviewer for the constructive comments. The abstract has been revised in the manuscript accordingly. (Page 1 Lines L8-12)
Point 2: Introduction, please provide more recent references regarding the Root Traits and Erosion Resistance in other parts of the world, in the introduction part.
Response 2: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive comment. More recent references regarding the Root Traits and Erosion Resistance in other parts of the world has been added in the introduction as “In northern Bangladesh, traditional erosion management approaches have been applied to control riverbank erosion and enhance livelihood resilience [10]. Burylo et al. [23] indicates that high root surface and higher tensile strength are important for soil stabilization. Hamidifar et al. [24] demonstrates that vetiver grass (Vetiveria zizanioides L.) can enhance river bank shear strength parameters.” (Page 1 Lines 43-44; Page 2 Lines 62-64)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript is quite an interesting one from data and statistical aspects and I believe it contributes to soil and water sustainability. I suggest come comments must be taken care of in order to enhance the quality of the manuscript. Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Response to Reviewer #4
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1652876
Response: We greatly appreciate the reviewer for the constructive comments and valuable suggestions, which improve the quality of our manuscript. Our point-to-point responses are described below. Meanwhile, the revisions are marked in red in the revised manuscript (sustainability-1652876R).
Reviewer’s comments and suggestions:
Point 1: Materials and Methods Page 2 Line 69: Add one picture showing the design setting in the field.
Response 1: Thanks to the reviewer for the constructive comments. A map showing the design setting in the field has been added in the revised manuscript accordingly. (Page 3 Lines 99-97)
Point 2: Page 2 Line 69 and 80: delete respectively.
Response 2: Thanks to the reviewer for the constructive comments. The words “respectively” have been deleted in the revised manuscript accordingly. (Page 2 Line 75 and 88)
Point 3: Page 4 Lines 142-145: This is part of the material used in this study not result.
Response 3: Thanks to the reviewer for the valuable comments. This part and Figure 1 have been moved to the materials and methods section. (Page 3 Lines 100-104)
Point 4: Conclusions Page 12 Line 366: Every study has its limitations which the authors should not hesitate to mention explicitly. Since this study is not an exception, the limitations of the study should be clearly mentioned either at the end of the discussion or in the conclusion section.
Response 4: Thanks to the reviewer for the constructive comments. The limitations have been added in the discussion section of the revised manuscript accordingly. (Page 13 Lines 395-397)
Point 5: References Page 13 Line 398: The authors should be selective in citing studies and should choose to cite only those studies that are most relevant and impactful. Without it, the article can stand out in the crowds of literature.
Response 5: Thanks to the reviewer for the constructive comments and valuable suggestions. New references have been added and the cited studies have been reselected in the references of the revised manuscript accordingly. (Page 14 Line 430-569)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have revised the paper and answered all of my comments carefully. In my opinion, the paper could be suggested for publication in its current form.
Best,
