Post-Shock Gravitational Erosion and Sediment Yield: A Case Study of Landscape Transformation along the Wenchuan–Yingxiu Section of the Minjiang River, Sichuan, China
, Yulong Chang, Dongshui Zhang, Lelin Li, Zhuoting Qiu and Yangdelong Xia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Add a supplementary table for abbreviations used in the whole text. In addition, try to define the abbreviations in the first place through the text, including the Abstract. Such as GIS, D-InSAR, etc.
2. Line 97: precipitation of 1285.1mm. There must be space between numerical numbers and units.
3. Line 126: which dataset was used? Mention clearly.
4. There are no proper descriptions of the vegetation (NDVI Index) of the study area and no mention whatsoever of the vegetation that might be grown.
5. There are many minor errors and parts of the manuscript. Such as Line 78: “the avoidance and management of geological disasters as well as the regulation of “, could be written as “avoiding and managing geological disasters and regulating” for more clarity. The authors should, if possible, get assistance from a native speaker of English to improve their writing.
6. The study area needs supplementation with information about the natural environment, e.g., geological sediments, relief and landforms, hydrology and climate condition. I propose adding information about vegetation characteristics, e.g., cultivation, tillage technics, etc.
7. Discuss the issues and implications of this study. Consider incorporating how this work is pertinent to a global audience. Compare-contrast your finding with past results from international literature. Specifically, how your findings align or contradict the focus of this research and the journal.
8. Add some photos from different steps of experimental settings in the field and laboratory to make it more catching to the audience.
There are some minor writing errors and grammatical mistakes. The quality of writing shall also be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript demonstrates valuable research; however, there are some minor revisions that need to be addressed.
There is a need to revise the introduction section with the objectives listed.
Mention the labels in Fig 6A.
Results in section "3.2.2. Macro-geomorphic Effects" could be revised with a better explanation.
The heading "3.2.3. Erosion and sediment yield effect of collapse landslide under multi-factor coupling" at line # 359 could be improved.
Manuscript requires improvements in terms of language clarity and simplicity.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper studies gravitational erosion and sediment yield after earthquake shocks in a region of China. I find the work interesting and useful, and may be of interest to scientists and technicians working on erosion, especially gravitational erosion, rockfalls and landslides. The work falls within the scope of the Remote Sensing journal. It has a sufficient impact and it represents an advance in the subject matter.
From my area of expertise (erosion) , I think that the content of the manuscript is scientifically correct, with a good bibliographic review, an adequate methodology, good results and discussion, and conclusions based on the results and that respond to the stated aims.
I can only comment on some formatting issues. I suggest the following changes:
1) Page 1: The keywords should not be in the title, to facilitate the operation of search engines. Please replace “gravitational erosion”, “Wenchuan” and “Minjiang river” with other words.
2) Line 19: please change “Shock” to “shock”.
3) Line Lines 73-80: This paragraph should go in Material and Methods and not in Introduction. Here, at the end of the Introduction, the objectives of the study should be clearly explained.
4) Table 3: The meaning of A, Pe, Rc, HD, Hm, I and DD should be explained at the bottom of the table.
5) Lines 171-177: The meaning of A, Pe, Rc, HD, Hm, I and DD should be explained the first time they are mentioned.
6) Table 4: Please change m3 to m3 (superscript)
7) Line 222: please change “Shock” to “shock”.
8) Figure 5: the figure does not look very good
9) Line 481: “Tin et al. (2018) to be replaced by a reference number in square brackets.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
