Plot-Scale Runoff Generation and Sediment Loss on Different Forest and Other Land Floors at a Karst Yellow Soil Region in Southwest China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
on line 25 of manuscript, the R should be in bracket (R).
Does the heavy rain have values? if yes, then include in abstract.
In line 41 "and" should come before accounts.
Line 88 to 96 should be rewritten to point out clearly the gap of knowledge; this gap of knowledge should align with the essence of study in the following paragraph (97 to 107).
This statement "The studies of runoff gen- 93
eration and sediment loss in Guizhou karst region started relatively late" on lines 93 and 94 needs to be cited.
Please be aware your report requires justification in the introduction section
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
It is a great honor to have your precious time and expertise to review our manuscript. We are very grateful for your valuable opinion and thank you heartily.
The problems you have pointed out are the weak spots of the manuscript, we have corrected them according to your suggestion. We listed the detailed responses to your advice one by one as in the following.
1）on line 25 of manuscript, the R should be in bracket (R).
Revised as advised. Thank you very much for pointing out the mistake.
2）Does the heavy rain have values? if yes, then include in abstract.
The value of heavy rain is added in the abstract. Thank you very much for pointing out the mistake
3）In line 41 "and" should come before accounts.
Revised as advised. Thank you very much for pointing out the mistake.
4）Line 88 to 96 should be rewritten to point out clearly the gap of knowledge; this gap of knowledge should align with the essence of study in the following paragraph (97 to 107).
This part has been revised. Thank you very much for pointing out the shortness.
5）This statement "The studies of runoff generation and sediment loss in Guizhou karst region started relatively late" on lines 93 and 94 needs to be cited.
The reference has been added in the main text. Thank you very much for pointing out the mistake.
6）Please be aware your report requires justification in the introduction section
The introduction part has been revised according to your suggestion. Thank you very much for pointing out the shortness.
Please allow us to represent the sincerest thank you again.
Yours truly,
Ruiwen Peng
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript uses natural rainfall-runoff data from 18 runoff plots to study soil erosion in the karst yellow soil region of SW China. The manuscript shows that a lot of work has been done, and Surface Runoff(SR) generation was linked with 30-minute maximum rainfall intensity and antecedent soil water content according to structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis. The research results maybe provide information for controlling water, soil loss, and correcting land in the karst yellow soil region in Southwest China. This is an interesting and useful topic. However, there are still doubts to be clarified as follows:
1) Line 124-132: The manuscript shows "The plots were divided into 7 groups by land cover type", but then cannot be found in Figure2. The scale maybe missed in Figure 2.
2) Line 233 and Line 282: It is suggested that the full text be unified with practical abbreviations, such as SR.
3) Line 272-278: The text in the figure does not correspond to the text in the content.
In short, this manuscript is well structured.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
It is a great honor to have your precious time and expertise to review our manuscript. We are very grateful for your valuable opinion and thank you heartily.
The problems you have pointed out are the weak spots of the manuscript, we have corrected them according to your suggestion. Here we list the detailed responses to your advice one by one as in the following.
1）Line 124-132: The manuscript shows "The plots were divided into 7 groups by land cover type", but then cannot be found in Figure2. The scale maybe missed in Figure 2.
Figure 2 has been modified. The plots are emphasized in the figure and the scale is added.
2) Line 233 and Line 282: It is suggested that the full text be unified with practical abbreviations, such as SR.
Revised as advised. Thank you very much for pointing out the mistake.
3) Line 272-278: The text in the figure does not correspond to the text in the content.
Revised as advised, Figure 7 has been modified. Thank you very much for pointing out the mistake.
Please allow us to represent the sincerest thank you again.
Yours truly,
Ruiwen Peng
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper theme is very interesting. It's just that the author has not clearly presented the research innovations carried out compared to previous research. The author also does not discuss in detail the findings of the study. The paper ends without a good policy recommendation according to the findings of the research
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
It is a great honor to have your precious time and expertise to review our manuscript. We are very grateful for your valuable opinion and thank you heartily.
The problems you have pointed out are the weak spots of the manuscript, we have corrected them according to your suggestion. We listed the detailed response to your advice one by one as in the following:
1）line19: On Abstract: Please, state first the innovation of this paper, before you explain about Slope runoff plots.
Revised as advised. This paper used a long time series (2015-2020) natural rainfall-runoff data and soil erosion data under natural condition collected on different forest floors. The results can better interpret the erosion dynamics in karst yellow soil region than simulated experiments.
2) line 35-36: Please, correct the last sentences with policy recommendation from this research result.
Revised as advised. Policy recommendation are added both in the abstract and in the main text.
3) line 37: Please don’t use keyword from the title of the paper. Make it different between tittle and keywords.
Revised as advised. Thank you very much for pointing out the mistake.
4) Line 131. the figure not clear
Figure 2 has been modified. Thank you very much for pointing out the mistake.
5) line 174-186, in SEM equation we have to describe latent exogen dan latent endogen variable. Please state it in clear.
The traditional SEM path analysis was adopted in this paper, as called path analysis with observed variables (PA-OV model) where all variables of the model are measured indicator variables. This kind of SEM path analysis is a structural equation model without any latent variables. This problem is addressed in the main text. Thank you very much for pointing out the shortness.
6) figure 4 is not a good figure since it’s not a clear.
Figure 2 has been modified. Thank you very much for pointing out the mistake.
7) line 241-244, so what does it means of high of RC and its reciprocal? Which one is better, the higher or the lower?
High runoff coefficient RC would cause more soil erosion, since intense surface runoff would take away the sediments. Forest floors can effectively regulate RC, which means on forest floor, RC is much lower than fallow land. So lower RC is better. This problem is addressed in the main text. Thank you very much for pointing out the shortness.
8) line 264-270, so what does it means of or ra high of SCR dan SLR and its reciprocal? one is better, the higher or the lower?
Runoff sediment concentration (RSC) is the amount of sediment in the runoff, which means lower RSC causes lower rate of soil erosion. Lower sediment loss rates (SLR) means milder soil erosion. This problem is addressed in the main text. Thank you very much for pointing out the shortness.
9) Give description of figure 6. for i.e. e1- e6. What is the 3 stars (***). 2 star (**) meaning?
*** indicates that the standardized path coefficient is significant at the level of 0.001; ** indicates that it is significant at the level of 0.01; * indicates that it is significant at the level of 0.05;
e1-e6: denote the residual terms of the corresponding terms, respectively.
This problem is addressed in the main text. Thank you very much for pointing out the shortness.
10) line 328-332: elaborate figure 6. For Example: which variable has a direct or indirect effect on other variables.
Figure 6 has been elaborated. Thank you very much for pointing out the mistake.
11) line 330: SEM model analysis about the influence, not the correlation of the variable. Please correct it.
Revised as advised in the main text. Thank you very much for pointing out the mistake.
12) line 369-370, so what are the more clearer policy implication produce by this research.
The policy implication is added in the abstract and in the main text. Thank you very much for pointing out the shortness.
Please allow us to represent the sincerest thank you again.
Yours truly,
Ruiwen Peng
