Spatial Variabilities of Runoff Erosion and Different Underlying Surfaces in the Xihe River Basin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see file attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear Professor, I am very grateful to you for your pertinent revisions. This paper mainly uses the SWAT model to divide the study area into several sub-basins and response units. Through the calibration rate, the results can be better approximated to the actual hydrological process, and a better research result is obtained. On this basis, this study explores the effects of different underlying surface conditions (topography, vegetation and soil) on runoff erosion through new index-runoff erosion power by using GWR model, and quantitatively indicates the correlation and spatial distribution of topography, vegetation cover and soil conditions with runoff erosion capacity. Taking the typical basin as the representative of the Loess Plateau, it contributes to the purposeful utilization of water and soil resources in the Xihe River Basin and provides a theoretical support for controlling the soil erosion in the Hilly-gully region of the Loess Plateau.
Detail Responses (see attachment)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The main objective of the paper is to analyze the spatial variabilities of Runoff Erosion and Different underlying surfaces in Xihe River Basin. This paper is not providing any new information which can be helpful to readers. The overall quality of the paper is poor. As per my opinion, the paper is not suitable for publication in the present form.
Specific comments are mentioned below:
a) The main problem of the paper is the common methodology and general information in the results section. The paper is not providing any new information.
b) In the introduction, the review is not sufficient and other important recent papers in India are missing here. The review is not motivating the importance of the study.
c) Sequence of the study area is not mentioned here.
d) The abstract is a general type. Please rewrite the abstract.
e) Output results are not clear. Authors should have explained the actual methodology of all results.
f) The discussion is not sufficient in the paper. The discussion should be added in the updated manuscript.
g) English language should be improved in updated manuscript.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Professor,
I am very grateful to you for your pertinent revisions.
Detail Responses
Point 1: The main problem of the paper is the common methodology and general information in the results section. The paper is not providing any new information.
Response 1: This paper mainly uses the SWAT model to divide the study area into several sub-basins and response units. Through the calibration rate, the results can be better approximated to the actual hydrological process, and a better research result is obtained. On this basis, this study explores the effects of different underlying surface conditions (topography, vegetation and soil) on runoff erosion through new index-runoff erosion power by using GWR model, and quantitatively indicates the correlation and spatial distribution of topography, vegetation cover and soil conditions with runoff erosion capacity. Taking the typical basin as the representative of the Loess Plateau, it contributes to the purposeful utilization of water and soil resources in the Xihe River Basin and provides a theoretical support for controlling the soil erosion in the Hilly-gully region of the Loess Plateau.
Point 2: In the introduction, the review is not sufficient and other important recent papers in India are missing here. The review is not motivating the importance of the study.
Response 2: Revised the content of the introduction, added lasted and more comprehensive references as shown in manuscript.
Point 3: Sequence of the study area is not mentioned here.
Response 3: I am so sorry that I could not understand what “sequence” is specifically referring to. I am afraid I have to trouble the experts to give detailed instructions. And the information such as soil and land cover were added in the section of study area (2.1), and detailed soil information was introduced in Section 4.5.
Point 4: The abstract is a general type. Please rewrite the abstract.
Response 4: Revised the content of the abstract as shown in manuscript.
Point 5: Output results are not clear. Authors should have explained the actual methodology of all results.
Response 5: Adding tables and content related to the evaluation of simulation results for peak flow periods, as shown in 4.1. Using vegetation index (NDVI) and soil steady infiltration rate can better reflect the vegetation coverage and soil spatial distribution in the basin, and it is more conducive to clear the influence of vegetation and soil on runoff erosion. In addition, the statistical results and analysis of the relation between the soil type and the runoff erosion capacity were increased in the 4.5 section. Figures 6 and 7 have been joined to one figure. We can judge which factor has the greatest impact according to the correlation coefficient of the legend.
Point 6: The discussion is not sufficient in the paper. The discussion should be added in the updated manuscript.
Response 6:
Adding the difference between the SWAT model and the RUSLE model in the discussion part of the paper.
In this study, parameters with great influences on the runoff simulation were determined by multiple calibrations, so that the SWAT model could fully exert its advantages to achieve better simulation results. The SWAT model is different from commonly used empirical soil erosion models such as the RUSLE model, which has simple input requirements and can conveniently calculate the soil erosion modulus of a small watershed, but cannot be applied to accurately simulate soil erosion at different regions. Based on the input of long-term sequence data, the watershed is divided into response units according to the information of land use type, soil type, and terrain slope by using the SWAT mode. The SWAT model uses measured runoff data to calibrate the simulated results and achieve consistence with real situations. Because of its accuracy, the SWAT model has been widely used to achieve convincing results. Though the SWAT model has a complex calibration process, the calibration can be facilitated by calculating the K factor, C factor, and P factor in the RUSLE model.
Point 7: English language should be improved in updated manuscript.
Response 7:
We regret there were problems with the English in the previous versions. The paper has been carefully revised by a native English speaker to improve the grammar and readability.
That’s all. I am looking forward to your valuable advice to further improve the quality of the manuscripts. Thank you so much.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see file attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Professor,
The authors are thankful for the valuable suggestions in the referee’s report. The manuscript (No.41729) has been revised by taking all these suggestions into account.
Detail Responses
Abstract
Point 1: L14: correct - “…on the spatial distribution of soil erosion or soil losses”
Response 1: The Sentence has been corrected in manuscript.
Point 2: L16-17: remove parenthesis. If it is important detail than it should not be written in parenthesis in the abstract.
Response 2: The parenthesis has been removed in manuscript.
Point 3: L28: I prefer the using “runoff depth” rather than “runoff modulus” . Th latter is less intuitive / clear to my opinion, i.e. in the abstract.
Response 3: “Runoff modulus” refers to the runoff generated per unit area of a river basin in a unit time and is a terminology, and it is an index of runoff erosion ability to explore the spatial variabilities between runoff erosion ability and different underlying surface conditions, so change the “runoff modulus” to “runoff depth” is not suitable in my opinion.
Keywords
Point 4: In general keywords should not include words that appear in the title e.g. “runoff erosion” or “Xihe River Basin” use the space for other relevant topical keywords.
Response 4: I have removed the keyword “Xihe River Basin”, and added the keyword “GWR model”. I want to keep the keyword “runoff erosion…” because the “ runoff erosion power” is an index of runoff erosion ability and have a significant role in the study.
Introduction
Point 5: L40: the sentence is too generic. Rewrite it targeting the spatial heterogeneity of soil erosion processes and transport …even in the Loess Plateau – one of the most heavily degraded areas due to soil erosion. Emphasize the role of hillslope vs fluvial processes in this landscape. And then explain why as written from L53… So 1st Paragraph needs to be rewritten.
Response 5: The 1st Paragraph has been rewritten in the manuscript and the reference has also been updated.
Materials and Methods
Point 6: L176-190: See Table 1 in Ohana-Levi et al. 2015 as away to present eq 1-4 (see a previous comment made in previous review and was not clear to the authors). https://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2015/838070/
Response 6: The eq 1-4 have been modified as shown in Table 2.
Results
Point 7: L306: Consider moving Fig 8 to study site description: L103-113.
Response 7: Fig 8 has been moved to study site description according to the suggestion.
Point 8: L319: units are missing for table 2: “runoff module” and “runoff erosion power” the Note L320 should be part of the caption of the table.
Response 8:The note has been deleted and make it be part of the caption of the table as shown in the manuscript.
Discussion
Point 9: The main point which is missing is the fact that SWAT is a watershed-based model vs RUSLE which is designed as a hillslope-based model even though in both models’ similar components are taken into consideration.
Response 9: This section has been modified according to the suggestion in the manuscript.
Conclusion
Point 10: I would like to encourage the authors to write a short conclusion section, so the contribution of this study will be clear and further develop the discussion especially following my comment below and in relation to existing knowledge / literature.
Response 10: This conclusion section has been added in the manuscript.
Finally, we regret there were problems with the English in the previous versions. The paper has been carefully revised by a native English speaker to improve the grammar and readability.
That’s all. I am looking forward to your advice to further improve the quality of the manuscripts. Thank you so much.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
a) The authors have updated in introduction part. But it need to be more improved for publication.
b) In the Figure 1, Please show the selected (black color boundary in China) (left part in the top) in right side with zoom. I am not getting any relation between left and right figure in the study area (top).
c) Please try to improve English language in the updated manuscript.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Professor,
The authors are thankful for the valuable suggestions in the referee’s report. The manuscript (No.41729) has been revised by taking all these suggestions into account.
Detail Responses
Point 1:The authors have updated in introduction part. But it need to be more improved for publication.
Response 1: The Introduction 1st Paragraph has been rewritten in the manuscript and the reference has also been updated.
Point 2: In the Figure 1, Please show the selected (black color boundary in China) (left part in the top) in right side with zoom. I am not getting any relation between left and right figure in the study area (top).
Response 2: In the Figure 1, the selected (black color boundary in China) (left part in the top) is the Gansu Province(Orange color in the right figure). Due to the large area of Gansu Province, the selected research area is relatively small. For the sake of the appearance of the picture, the local area of Gansu Province is enlarged to the right figure shows.
Point 3: Please try to improve English language in the updated manuscript.
Response 3: We regret there were problems with the English in the previous versions. The paper has been carefully revised by a native English speaker to improve the grammar and readability.
That’s all. I am looking forward to your advice to further improve the quality of the manuscripts. Thank you so much.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
