Applicability Comparison of GIS-Based RUSLE and SEMMA for Risk Assessment of Soil Erosion in Wildfire Watersheds
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1) General comments
In this study, Erosion rates for two watersheds damaged by wildfire were estimated by Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) and the Soil Erosion Model for Mountain Areas (SEMMA) developed in South Korea. Based on the erosion rates of the two watersheds, the changes in erosion risk within the watersheds were determined, and the two methods were applied simultaneously to the wildfire area for comparative study.
Generally, the topic of the investigation is interesting. I greatly appreciate and agree with the comparative experiment in the manuscript. Compared with other studies, the study compared estimates of erosion rates in wildfire areas with different models based on existing models. However, the conclusions drawn by the comparative experiments in this paper are not sufficient, the content of the manuscript is insufficient, and additional experiments are needed to make the conclusions of the paper more reliable, this study has the potential to be an interesting contribution.
As the result I have some major reservations about the contribution of this work to the existing body of knowledge and this lead me to recommend a major revision to this paper.
To wit:
First of all, the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to estimate watershed erosion rates has been explored in many studies. In addition, the combination of remote sensing technology and RUSLE has been widely used to estimate the soil erosion rate of river basins.
For Soil erosion equation (RUSLE) was used to estimate basin erosion rate, please refer to the following articles:
Elnashar A, Zeng H, Wu B, et al. Soil erosion assessment in the Blue Nile Basin driven by a novel RUSLE-GEE framework[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2021, 793: 148466.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148466
Phinzi K, Ngetar N S. The assessment of water-borne erosion at catchment level using GIS-based RUSLE and remote sensing: A review[J]. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 2019, 7(1): 27-46.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2018.12.002
Senanayake S, Pradhan B, Alamri A, et al. A new application of deep neural network (LSTM) and RUSLE models in soil erosion prediction[J]. Science of The Total Environment, 2022, 845: 157220.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157220
Secondly, no scientific and reasonable hypotheses are made, making the text too descriptive. The hypothesis should be established and tested through observations, and the hypothesis should be demonstrated point-to-point around the research purpose, and finally, the problems and significance of the research should be summarized.
Thirdly, the discussion in this manuscript is unsufficient. This deficiency makes it appear more like a technical report rather than an academic paper. It is recommended to enhance the discussion section by including more in-depth analysis and explanations to articulate the significance and implications of the research findings. This will contribute to elevating the academic rigor and comprehensibility of the paper.
Fourthly, The manuscript concludes that RUSLE overestimates the erosion rate without considering the interaction of many factors. This conclusion is somewhat subjective, and I have reservations about the work's contribution to the existing body of knowledge.
Additionally, some of the manuscript's expression is not appropriate, and some of the statements in these parts have no corresponding literature support. Literature research on this statement is needed to support the statement. I will give a detailed explanation in the "specific comments" below, please refer to it carefully and modify it.
Lastly, the writing of the manuscript requires some English editing, and there are many errors in grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. I have provided some suggested changes in the "specific comments" below to improve this situation.
2) Specific comments
Throughout the manuscript:
1. All abbreviations in each part of the manuscript including the abstract and contents, as well as in the Table and Figure, should be introduced for the first time despite how common or not the abbreviation is.
2. The legend in the manuscript diagram should retain decimal or take integer, the legend production has defects, the content is not complete. For instance, Figure 5, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11 and Figure 12.
Abstract
1. Line 14: "NDVIs" is different from the previous "NDVI". Please provide a detailed explanation and consider making the necessary modifications for clarity.
Introduction
1. Line 31: The introduction should be carefully revised and undergo significant modifications. The current introduction appears disorganized, lacks strong logical flow, effective contents and exhibits weak language organization. Additionally, most of the references cited in the introduction are from before 2019, and there is a need to provide a summary analysis of recent developments in the last four years. Please consider a thorough revision and restructuring of the introduction to address these issues.
2. Line 40: Eliminate multiple references. The use of references in this paragraph appears concentrated, potentially impacting the clarity and readability of your writing. The numerous citations make it challenging to follow the main argument. Please spread out the references to enhance the logical flow of each point.
3. Lines 42: There's a period missing between conducted and The .
4. Lines 43: What is the full name of NIR? Regardless of how common the English abbreviation is, when it first appears, it should be spelled out in its full form. Please provide the full name and make the necessary revision for clarity.
5. Lines 57-59: A comparative study of the two methods has been mentioned in the abstract, but it is not mentioned in the purpose of the introduction, and it is recommended that this part be carefully revised and modified to conform to the content of the manuscript.
Methodology
1. Line 65: The latitude and longitude shown in Figure 1 are different from the latitude and longitude of the study area in the manuscript, so please make necessary modifications accordingly. The red area in the right figure is not indicated as the burned area, so please make necessary modifications for clarity.
2. Line 69: What is meant by "changed horizons"? Please choose your words carefully and consider any changes necessary for clarity.
3. Line 80-84: The statement lacks a theoretical basis. It is recommended to cite relevant literature to support this assertion. Please provide more detailed explanations and consider revising this part with appropriate references to strengthen the argument.
4. Lines 86: From where was the data in Table 1 obtained? Please provide a detailed explanation and annotate the data source for clarity and transparency.
5. Lines 92: It is recommended to cite relevant literature for reference.
6. Line 97-99: This situation is not clearly reflected in Figure 2, and it is recommended to consider redesigning Figure 2 to improve clarity and accuracy. Please make the necessary changes accordingly.
7. Lines 101-102: It is recommended to write the full name first and then abbreviate it in parentheses. Please make necessary changes for clarity.
8. Lines 115: The numbering format for equation numbering throughout the document should remain consistent, with equation numbers positioned on the right. Please make the necessary revisions for consistency.
9. Lines 132-133: The statement lacks a theoretical basis. It is recommended to cite relevant literature to support this assertion. Please provide more detailed explanations and consider revising this part with appropriate references to strengthen the argument.
10. Line 147-149: The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) and RMSE should be added to each of the statistical analysis and accuracy assessment. According to a large number of previous studies, it is necessary to evaluate the accuracy of statistical analysis .
11. Line 170: Table 1 does not appear to show this information, please check carefully for spelling errors.
12. Lines 196-197: Please explain in detail how the boundary between the two watersheds is defined.
13. Line 257: Please examine the manuscript carefully, the symbols used in the manuscript seem to be only half and incomplete.
14. Line 258-262: The statement lacks a theoretical basis. It is advisable to cite relevant literature to support this assertion. Please provide more detailed explanations and consider revising this part accordingly with appropriate references to strengthen the argument.
15. Lines 275-278: This part of the regression equation for the assessment of organic matter content is recommended for specific interpretation.
16. Lines 301-304: Is the statement accurate regarding Wildfire areas have a low susceptibility? This assertion lacks a theoretical basis. Please provide references from relevant literature to support this claim and consider revising this part for clarity and accuracy .
17. Line 309-312: Eliminate multiple references. The use of references in this paragraph appears concentrated, potentially impacting the clarity and readability of your writing. The numerous citations make it challenging to follow the main argument. Please spread out the references to enhance the logical flow of each point.
18. Line 326: In Figure 2, I did not see any information about the rainfall coefficient of the two basins.Please modify it carefully.
19. Line 334: It is not clear which figure 7 and which figure obtained the information about precipitation erosion factors. Please reorganize the language and modify it.
Result and discussion
1. Line 349-350: In Figure 9, I do not see a significant increase in the level of moderate erosion, suggesting a careful review or rethinking of the wording.
2. Lines 367-369: The assertions here may oversimplify the relationship between RUSLE and other factors. Simply concluding that RUSLE is extremely sensitive to changes in slope may not fully understand the complex interactions involved. It is recommended that other relevant factors that may influence the overestimation of RUSLE be discussed and considered in more detail. Please modify this section accordingly.
3. Lines 403-409: The reasons for the increased erosion risk can be further discussed, because the erosion risk is affected by the interaction of many factors, and it is suggested to revise this part again.
4. Lines 420-421: The article mentioned that the SEMMA model should be used with caution in other steep wildfire areas, indicating that there are topographical limitations to wildfire area risk assessment, please rephrase it.
5. Line 427-429: In the case of different rainfall, the line chart does not seem to reflect the required information well. It is advisable to consider replotting the figure using graphic software to enhance its visual quality.
6. Line 456-470: The content of the discussion part is not sufficient, only the rainfall factor is discussed, and other factors are not integrated. This part can be expanded.
Conclusion
1. Lines 475-479: This part should be placed in the Introduction section, not in the Results section. Please make the necessary revisions.
2. Lines 481-511: The conclusion section is overly qualitative and lengthy. It lacks a concise summary of the main findings of the manuscript. Please revise accordingly.
Reference
1. Line 512: The majority of the references are from before 2019, and there is a shortage of references from 2019 onward. It is recommended to conduct a literature review of recent research developments in the past few years. The reference formatting should be standardized in accordance with the journal's requirements.
Comments on the Quality of English Language1) General comments
In this study, Erosion rates for two watersheds damaged by wildfire were estimated by Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) and the Soil Erosion Model for Mountain Areas (SEMMA) developed in South Korea. Based on the erosion rates of the two watersheds, the changes in erosion risk within the watersheds were determined, and the two methods were applied simultaneously to the wildfire area for comparative study.
Generally, the topic of the investigation is interesting. I greatly appreciate and agree with the comparative experiment in the manuscript. Compared with other studies, the study compared estimates of erosion rates in wildfire areas with different models based on existing models. However, the conclusions drawn by the comparative experiments in this paper are not sufficient, the content of the manuscript is insufficient, and additional experiments are needed to make the conclusions of the paper more reliable, this study has the potential to be an interesting contribution.
As the result I have some major reservations about the contribution of this work to the existing body of knowledge and this lead me to recommend a major revision to this paper.
To wit:
First of all, the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to estimate watershed erosion rates has been explored in many studies. In addition, the combination of remote sensing technology and RUSLE has been widely used to estimate the soil erosion rate of river basins.
For Soil erosion equation (RUSLE) was used to estimate basin erosion rate, please refer to the following articles:
Elnashar A, Zeng H, Wu B, et al. Soil erosion assessment in the Blue Nile Basin driven by a novel RUSLE-GEE framework[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2021, 793: 148466.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148466
Phinzi K, Ngetar N S. The assessment of water-borne erosion at catchment level using GIS-based RUSLE and remote sensing: A review[J]. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 2019, 7(1): 27-46.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2018.12.002
Senanayake S, Pradhan B, Alamri A, et al. A new application of deep neural network (LSTM) and RUSLE models in soil erosion prediction[J]. Science of The Total Environment, 2022, 845: 157220.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157220
Secondly, no scientific and reasonable hypotheses are made, making the text too descriptive. The hypothesis should be established and tested through observations, and the hypothesis should be demonstrated point-to-point around the research purpose, and finally, the problems and significance of the research should be summarized.
Thirdly, the discussion in this manuscript is unsufficient. This deficiency makes it appear more like a technical report rather than an academic paper. It is recommended to enhance the discussion section by including more in-depth analysis and explanations to articulate the significance and implications of the research findings. This will contribute to elevating the academic rigor and comprehensibility of the paper.
Fourthly, The manuscript concludes that RUSLE overestimates the erosion rate without considering the interaction of many factors. This conclusion is somewhat subjective, and I have reservations about the work's contribution to the existing body of knowledge.
Additionally, some of the manuscript's expression is not appropriate, and some of the statements in these parts have no corresponding literature support. Literature research on this statement is needed to support the statement. I will give a detailed explanation in the "specific comments" below, please refer to it carefully and modify it.
Lastly, the writing of the manuscript requires some English editing, and there are many errors in grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. I have provided some suggested changes in the "specific comments" below to improve this situation.
2) Specific comments
Throughout the manuscript:
1. All abbreviations in each part of the manuscript including the abstract and contents, as well as in the Table and Figure, should be introduced for the first time despite how common or not the abbreviation is.
2. The legend in the manuscript diagram should retain decimal or take integer, the legend production has defects, the content is not complete. For instance, Figure 5, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11 and Figure 12.
Abstract
1. Line 14: "NDVIs" is different from the previous "NDVI". Please provide a detailed explanation and consider making the necessary modifications for clarity.
Introduction
1. Line 31: The introduction should be carefully revised and undergo significant modifications. The current introduction appears disorganized, lacks strong logical flow, effective contents and exhibits weak language organization. Additionally, most of the references cited in the introduction are from before 2019, and there is a need to provide a summary analysis of recent developments in the last four years. Please consider a thorough revision and restructuring of the introduction to address these issues.
2. Line 40: Eliminate multiple references. The use of references in this paragraph appears concentrated, potentially impacting the clarity and readability of your writing. The numerous citations make it challenging to follow the main argument. Please spread out the references to enhance the logical flow of each point.
3. Lines 42: There's a period missing between conducted and The .
4. Lines 43: What is the full name of NIR? Regardless of how common the English abbreviation is, when it first appears, it should be spelled out in its full form. Please provide the full name and make the necessary revision for clarity.
5. Lines 57-59: A comparative study of the two methods has been mentioned in the abstract, but it is not mentioned in the purpose of the introduction, and it is recommended that this part be carefully revised and modified to conform to the content of the manuscript.
Methodology
1. Line 65: The latitude and longitude shown in Figure 1 are different from the latitude and longitude of the study area in the manuscript, so please make necessary modifications accordingly. The red area in the right figure is not indicated as the burned area, so please make necessary modifications for clarity.
2. Line 69: What is meant by "changed horizons"? Please choose your words carefully and consider any changes necessary for clarity.
3. Line 80-84: The statement lacks a theoretical basis. It is recommended to cite relevant literature to support this assertion. Please provide more detailed explanations and consider revising this part with appropriate references to strengthen the argument.
4. Lines 86: From where was the data in Table 1 obtained? Please provide a detailed explanation and annotate the data source for clarity and transparency.
5. Lines 92: It is recommended to cite relevant literature for reference.
6. Line 97-99: This situation is not clearly reflected in Figure 2, and it is recommended to consider redesigning Figure 2 to improve clarity and accuracy. Please make the necessary changes accordingly.
7. Lines 101-102: It is recommended to write the full name first and then abbreviate it in parentheses. Please make necessary changes for clarity.
8. Lines 115: The numbering format for equation numbering throughout the document should remain consistent, with equation numbers positioned on the right. Please make the necessary revisions for consistency.
9. Lines 132-133: The statement lacks a theoretical basis. It is recommended to cite relevant literature to support this assertion. Please provide more detailed explanations and consider revising this part with appropriate references to strengthen the argument.
10. Line 147-149: The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) and RMSE should be added to each of the statistical analysis and accuracy assessment. According to a large number of previous studies, it is necessary to evaluate the accuracy of statistical analysis .
11. Line 170: Table 1 does not appear to show this information, please check carefully for spelling errors.
12. Lines 196-197: Please explain in detail how the boundary between the two watersheds is defined.
13. Line 257: Please examine the manuscript carefully, the symbols used in the manuscript seem to be only half and incomplete.
14. Line 258-262: The statement lacks a theoretical basis. It is advisable to cite relevant literature to support this assertion. Please provide more detailed explanations and consider revising this part accordingly with appropriate references to strengthen the argument.
15. Lines 275-278: This part of the regression equation for the assessment of organic matter content is recommended for specific interpretation.
16. Lines 301-304: Is the statement accurate regarding Wildfire areas have a low susceptibility? This assertion lacks a theoretical basis. Please provide references from relevant literature to support this claim and consider revising this part for clarity and accuracy .
17. Line 309-312: Eliminate multiple references. The use of references in this paragraph appears concentrated, potentially impacting the clarity and readability of your writing. The numerous citations make it challenging to follow the main argument. Please spread out the references to enhance the logical flow of each point.
18. Line 326: In Figure 2, I did not see any information about the rainfall coefficient of the two basins.Please modify it carefully.
19. Line 334: It is not clear which figure 7 and which figure obtained the information about precipitation erosion factors. Please reorganize the language and modify it.
Result and discussion
1. Line 349-350: In Figure 9, I do not see a significant increase in the level of moderate erosion, suggesting a careful review or rethinking of the wording.
2. Lines 367-369: The assertions here may oversimplify the relationship between RUSLE and other factors. Simply concluding that RUSLE is extremely sensitive to changes in slope may not fully understand the complex interactions involved. It is recommended that other relevant factors that may influence the overestimation of RUSLE be discussed and considered in more detail. Please modify this section accordingly.
3. Lines 403-409: The reasons for the increased erosion risk can be further discussed, because the erosion risk is affected by the interaction of many factors, and it is suggested to revise this part again.
4. Lines 420-421: The article mentioned that the SEMMA model should be used with caution in other steep wildfire areas, indicating that there are topographical limitations to wildfire area risk assessment, please rephrase it.
5. Line 427-429: In the case of different rainfall, the line chart does not seem to reflect the required information well. It is advisable to consider replotting the figure using graphic software to enhance its visual quality.
6. Line 456-470: The content of the discussion part is not sufficient, only the rainfall factor is discussed, and other factors are not integrated. This part can be expanded.
Conclusion
1. Lines 475-479: This part should be placed in the Introduction section, not in the Results section. Please make the necessary revisions.
2. Lines 481-511: The conclusion section is overly qualitative and lengthy. It lacks a concise summary of the main findings of the manuscript. Please revise accordingly.
Reference
1. Line 512: The majority of the references are from before 2019, and there is a shortage of references from 2019 onward. It is recommended to conduct a literature review of recent research developments in the past few years. The reference formatting should be standardized in accordance with the journal's requirements.
Author Response
We apologize for the delay in editing the manuscript.
Because we submitted the paper in a hurry to meet the special issue deadline, the completion of the paper was not high. RUSLE and SEMMA for flow accumulation version were additionally simulated, and additional analysis of the results was also performed. If additional editing is needed for the manuscript, please do not hesitate to give comments.
Thank you very much for your patience.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper investigates post-wildfire erosion risk in Uljin, South Korea, following the second-largest wildfire in history in March 2022. Focusing on two watersheds, Bugucheon and Namdaecheon, the study employs the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) and Spatially Explicit Multiscale Modeling Approach (SEMMA) to estimate erosion rates and assess erosion risk. The analysis utilizes geospatial data from ArcGIS, including NDVI extracted from Sentinel-2 satellite images. Here are some suggestions to improve all the sections of the manuscript:
Title:
- Consider making the title more concise while retaining the key elements.
- Example: "Assessing Erosion Risk in Wildfire-Affected Watersheds: GIS-Based RUSLE and SEMMA Analysis"
Abstract:
- Streamline the abstract for clarity and brevity.
- Explicitly mention the specific objectives of the study.
- Highlight key findings in the abstract.
Keywords:
- Include a broader set of relevant keywords for better discoverability.
Introduction:
- Provide a more explicit transition between the global context of large-scale wildfires and the specific case of Uljin, South Korea.
- Clearly state the research gap or question being addressed by the study.
- Consider merging the last sentence of the introduction with the objectives for a smoother flow.
- Add a transition sentence connecting the discussion on remote sensing technology to the relevance of NDVI for post-wildfire vegetation assessment.
- Briefly explain why both RUSLE and SEMMA were chosen for this study.
- Introduce the key parameters of RUSLE and SEMMA in this section to provide context.
- Clearly outline the specific objectives or research questions addressed by the study.
- Consider restructuring the objectives for clarity and conciseness.
Methodology:
1. Introduction to Study Area:
- Clarify the significance of studying the Uljin-Samcheok area, especially after the wildfire. Why is this specific region important for your study? What are the potential implications of the wildfire on the environment?
2. Geographical Information:
- Provide a brief overview of the geographical features of the Uljin-Samcheok area. This could include the type of terrain, elevation, and any unique characteristics that might be relevant to your study.
3. Vegetation and Climate:
- Expand on the description of the dominant vegetation (Pinus densiflora) and its relevance to the study. How did the wildfire impact this dominant species?
- Elaborate on the climate conditions, especially any seasonal variations that might affect the study area.
4. Soil Characteristics:
- Provide more detail about the soil characteristics in the study area, especially in relation to the wildfire's impact. How did the wildfire change the soil properties? Any observations or analyses on soil composition changes post-wildfire?
5. Hydrological Features:
- Elaborate on the watersheds of Bugucheon and Namdaecheon rivers. How significant are these watersheds, and what role do they play in the ecological system of the Uljin-Samcheok area?
6. Slope and Wildfire Impact:
- Discuss in more detail how the steep slopes and topography influenced the spread and intensity of the wildfire. Any correlation between slope steepness and wildfire severity?
7. Rainfall Observation Points:
- Clarify the relevance of the rainfall observation points. Why were these specific locations chosen, and how do they contribute to the study?
8. Soil Erosion Models:
- Provide a brief rationale for choosing RUSLE and SEMMA for soil erosion modeling. Why are these models suitable for the study area, especially post-wildfire?
9. Detailed Explanation of Equations:
- Break down the equations (e.g., RUSLE, SEMMA) step by step, explaining each parameter and its significance in the context of your study.
Results and Discussion:
- Ensure a clear and logical flow in presenting the results and discussion. The subsections (3.1, 3.2, 3.3) are well-defined, but consider using subheadings within each subsection to further organize the content.
- Begin the section with a brief introduction to set the context for the results and their significance. Explain the importance of estimating erosion rates and assessing erosion risk in the aftermath of a wildfire.
- Define acronyms like RUSLE and SEMMA upon first use to ensure clarity for readers who may not be familiar with these models.
- Some sentences are lengthy and could be divided for better readability. Aim for concise and focused sentences to convey information more effectively.
- Provide more in-depth interpretation of the results. Explain the implications of the observed changes in erosion rates and erosion risk. Discuss how these findings contribute to the understanding of post-wildfire environmental dynamics.
- Emphasize the differences between RUSLE and SEMMA results, especially in terms of their implications for watershed management. Discuss why SEMMA might be a more suitable model in certain scenarios.
- When discussing the findings, refer to and compare with relevant studies in the field to provide context and support your interpretations.
- Discuss the practical implications of the findings for land and watershed management. Address how the results can inform strategies to mitigate erosion risk in post-wildfire areas.
Conclusion:
- Begin the conclusion by summarizing the key findings succinctly. Highlight the main results related to erosion rates, erosion risk, and the impact of extreme rainfall.
- Reiterate the context of the study, emphasizing the significance of assessing erosion risk in post-wildfire areas. Remind readers of the environmental conditions and the specific challenges faced in Uljin, South Korea.
- Provide a brief reflection on the unique characteristics of the Bugucheon and Namdaecheon watersheds. Discuss how the steep slopes and the extent of damage influenced the erosion patterns observed in the study.
- Reinforce the importance of model selection by highlighting the differences between RUSLE and SEMMA. Emphasize the sensitivity of each model to specific factors, such as slope and vegetation index, and how this influenced the accuracy of erosion rate estimations.
- Discuss any measures taken to enhance the accuracy of the models, such as recalculating the K factor and considering extreme rainfall in the redevelopment of SEMMA models. Explain how these adjustments contributed to a more realistic representation of erosion risk.
- Discuss the practical implications of the findings for watershed and land management. Address how the study's results can inform strategies to mitigate erosion risk, especially in areas with a history of wildfires and extreme rainfall.
- Explore the temporal changes in erosion rates and recovery patterns. Discuss the observed decrease in erosion rates over time according to SEMMA and explain how this relates to the natural recovery of vegetation.
- Elaborate on the response of the watersheds to extreme rainfall events, specifically citing the example of Typhoon Khanun in 2023. Discuss the observed impacts, such as incision, landslides, and sediment yield, and highlight the importance of cautious land management practices.
- Conclude by suggesting potential avenues for future research. Discuss any aspects of erosion modeling or watershed management that require further exploration based on the current findings.
- Provide a final reflection on the broader implications of the study, reinforcing its contribution to understanding post-wildfire erosion dynamics and its relevance for similar regions facing similar challenges.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The overall quality of English in the paper appears to be good. The language is clear, and the sentences are generally well-structured. The paper effectively communicates complex scientific information and research findings. However, I noticed a few instances where sentence structure could be improved for better clarity, and there are minor grammatical issues. Here are a couple of examples:
1. In the "Results and Discussion" section, the sentence "The moderate erosion occupied the largest area in Bugucheon and Namdaecheon watersheds" could be rephrased for better clarity. Perhaps, "The largest area affected by moderate erosion was observed in the Bugucheon and Namdaecheon watersheds."
2. In the "Conclusion" section, the sentence "To evaluate erosion risk in watersheds 479 before and after the wildfire, this study utilized RUSLE and SEMMA based geospatial 480 information of ArcGIS" could be refined. For example, "This study utilized RUSLE and SEMMA, based on geospatial information from ArcGIS, to evaluate erosion risk in the watersheds before and after the wildfire."
Author Response
We apologize for the delay in revising the manuscript.
Because we submitted the paper in a hurry to meet the special issue deadline, the completion of the paper was not high. RUSLE and SEMMA for flow accumulation version were additionally simulated, and additional analysis of the results was performed. If additional editing is needed for the manuscript, please do not hesitate to give comments.
Thank you very much for your patience.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors provided enough feedbacks to address my comments, so it is recommended to be accept for publication now.
