Study on Mechanical Characteristics of Living Stumps and Reinforcement Mechanisms of Slopes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Here are some comments about your work.

 

-The authors must highlight the novelty of the work.

-It would be interesting to consider the viscoelastic response of the model material (ABS).

-How is the numerical model calibrated? To guarantee the consistency with experimental data.

-The authors should delve more into the results, improve the discussion, and compare them with the literature.

-What is the perspective of this work?

-It is recommended to update references.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor revisions are recommended.

Author Response

Thanks to the reviewers for their suggestions, please take time out of your busy schedule to check the revised manuscript. Attached is a reply comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.     I suggest updating abstract to include the most recent findings, whether they are specific percentages or numbers, so that the findings have a clear value and can be compared to other findings until the value of the research findings is evident.

2.     To enable the researcher to properly conduct follow-up study and reap the benefits, the problem needs to be thoroughly explained in a section or, better yet, stated in the introduction.

3.     Secondly, I would consider concluding the introduction section with an example of the paper's structure. The subsequent portions of this manuscript are organized as follows. Section 2 contains the following information: In Section 3... in Section

4.     The problem statement must to also be included.

5.     Please double-check the references update.

6.     The conclusion should have more specific numbers.

Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thanks to the reviewers for their suggestions, please take time out of your busy schedule to check the revised manuscript. Attached is a reply comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well structured paper and comparison between physical and numerical modelling.

Few corrections to do.

Regards

1) Keywords: ‘reinforcement mechanism’ seems too generic

2) Meymand statement: explain briefly basics for similarity assessment

3) Resistance strain gauges were used to measure the strain of each root system: very interesting, please provide some more details on monitoring setting also considering fig. 7 and 9.

4) Caption of fig 8: some more details

5) Fig,12 add a metric scale

6) Fig 14: add more details to caption of figure

7) Fig.18, 21, 22: mention that the scale is the same of physical model

Author Response

Thanks for the reviewer's suggestion, Please take time from your busy schedule to check the revised manuscript outside. Attached is the reply comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, the submitted manuscript covers a good study of  Living Stump Reinforcement.

Since stump reinforcement is the area of consideration, don't you think a little stress should be placed on the conditions (soil conditions) where the experimental part is being considered?

The manuscript covers all the major points, and 3D modeling of the elm stump is a strong point of consideration. Will this study apply to similar living stumps as well? Should some considerations be kept in mind?

Kindly mention how this paper qualifies as part of SUSTAINABILITY. 

As a native English speaker, I am finding many grammatical errors. It is not just the Abstract but also the numerous instances in the rest of the manuscript that require proofreading.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Work on your Abstract. Usage of AI is making your work weak.

Author Response

Thanks to the reviewers for their suggestions, please take time out of your busy schedule to check the revised manuscript. Attached is a reply comment.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the revised manuscript, the authors consider the reviewer´s comments.