Root Functional Traits and Water Erosion-Reducing Potential of Two Indigenous C4 Grass Species for Erosion Control of Mudstone Badlands in Taiwan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments
The paper presents a very detail investigation on two grass species, especially on the function of preventing erosion based on root mechanical properties. The authors provided valuable test data from the rigorous test procedures and analyses. The results are well discussed and reach a clear conclusion. However, the conclusion of C. dactylon better than E. ophiuroides is only applicable to the test conditions set by the authors. A limitation on the conclusion should be added in the abstract and text.
Specific comments
- Line 86, “A pilot research…”. It the pilot research conducted by the authors or cited from other reference? Please specify it in the text.
- Line 98, “dry mass” should be dry unit weight.
- Line 67 “1. Sample Preparation” should be “1 Sample Preparation”. Please revise the numbering of title in section 2.
- Line 127, the font of ρ is not consistent with that in Eq. (3). Please revise it.
- Line 203. The test is done on a surface slope of 15 degree. Please explain the reason of picking up this angle. Is it supported by any on-site survey result?
- Line 216-222. The numbering of table is wrong. Please check it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor,
As can be seen in teh first sentence of teh abstract teh paper need ful scientific editing. Besides, the abstract and Introduction need to follow standars in the sence they must identify research gaps, not only by staing that this type of research question has not been investigated in China. This is an international journal and issues have to be assessed on an international basis. I concur with all the other remarks by the reviewers.
I thus call for major revision
extract of teh abstract" Land use change is an important reason for the change of carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystem. Therefore, analyzing the impact of land use change on carbon storage is instructive to 11
explore the sustainable development of cities and improve the value of ecosystem services. Taking 12
Changchun city in northeast of China as the research area, this paper simulated land use pattern 13
under three scenarios in 2030 by FLUS model and assessed carbon storage from 2010 to 2030 by 14
InVEST model
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript contains valuable content that contributes to the elucidation of soil, water and plant interactions. However, the reviewer believes that appropriate revisions by the authors are necessary for publication as a journal article, as stated in the following comments.
(1) The abstract is redundant. The authors should devise a way to summarize the contents of the manuscript.
(2) The amount of introduction is small, and the novelty and originality of this research cannot be found.
(3) Instead of the Introduction, a new Section 2 should be established to describe related research results.
(4) In the figure, color is desired instead of monochrome.
(5) The amount of Conclusions is small, that is, the reviewer doubt that this manuscript will not produce much results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This manuscript describes erosion controls of two C4 grass species in Taiwan. The authors measured root area ratio, root traits, maximum pullout resistance, root diameter, tensile resistance force, tensile strength, soil loss, and relative soil detachment rates to evaluate erosion control of C. dactyhon and E. ophiuroides. I think the results of this study will be useful to readers. So, I recommend that this manuscript is qualified to be published in Water journal after the revision.
Minor comments
- in Section 2.1, add relevant references for sample preparation.
- in line 101, add relevant equation and notation regarding maximum pullout resistance, Fmax, and N.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper has been sufficiently improved
Author Response
Reviewer’s comments and suggestions:
This paper has been sufficiently improved.
Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer for the constructive comments and valuable suggestions, which improve the quality of our manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The reviewer has confirmed that the authors have made serious corrections to the reviewer's comments.
At the same time, the revised contents were also appropriate for the comments.
Therefore, the reviewer will determine that this manuscript can be accepted into the "Water" Journal.
Author Response
Reviewer’s comments and suggestions:
The reviewer has confirmed that the authors have made serious corrections to the reviewer's comments.
At the same time, the revised contents were also appropriate for the comments.
Therefore, the reviewer will determine that this manuscript can be accepted into the "Water" Journal.
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the constructive comments and valuable suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
