Analysis of Water Infiltration Characteristics and Hydraulic Parameters of Sierozem Soil under Humic Acid Addition
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
l Please clarify the innovation points of this article, and added it in the manuscript.
l In the section 2.2, why you set humic acid concentrations at 1% gradient intervals instead of greater intervals?
l In the section 3.3, you can give more explanation for the impact of different concentrations of humic acid on the infiltration rate in Figure 4(b).
l In the section 3.2 and 3.4, the comparison with previous research results could be included in the discussion and was separated from the result analysis.
l You need to add the discussion section to the manuscript.
l The conclusion part is similar to the results, but not conclusions.
l You had better give more analysis for that how much humic acid is most effective for reducing soil permeability.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
On behalf of my co-authors, thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise the manuscript. We appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Analysis of water infiltration characteristics and hydraulic parameters of Sierozem Soil under humic acid addition”. We are very sorry to update the revised manuscript so late because of language improvement and the discussion section was added.
In the revised version, we have addressed the concerns of the reviewers. An point by point response to the reviewers’ comments is enclosed, and the main revision was marked in the manuscript. We hope that these revisions successfully address their concerns and requirements and that this manuscript will be accepted. Look forward to hearing from you soon.
Best wishes.
Xian Ma
The response to the first reviewer
- Please clarify the innovation points of this article, and added it in the manuscript.
Response: lines 52, 70-81, the innovation points of the article have been added in the introduction.
- the section 2.2, why you set humic acid concentrations at 1% gradient intervals instead of greater intervals?
Response: line 110: The humic acid concentrations interval is 1%. The reason is based on the summary, induction or reasoning of a large amount of literatures and studies based on the local soil characteristics. Two references 10 and 15 were added to support the experimental design.
- the section 3.3, you can give more explanation for the impact of different concentrations of humic acid on the infiltration rate in Figure 4(b).
Response: line 321-335: In Figure 4(b), a detailed explanation of infiltration rates is added to 4.1 Discussion.
- In the section 3.2 and 3.4, the comparison with previous research results could be included in the discussion and was separated from the result analysis.
Response: the results and analysis of the paper have been set separately. 3.2 and 3.4 only write the research results, and the relevant analysis is put in the 4.1discussion.
- You need to add the discussion section to the manuscript.
Response: the structure of the article has been restructured and a discussion has been added in Section 4 of the article.
- The conclusion part is similar to the results, but not conclusions.
Response: The conclusion part of the paper has been revised, and we have more clearly expressed the overall conclusion and significance of the paper.
- You had better give more analysis for that how much humic acid is most effective for reducing soil permeability.
Response: 4. Discussion is added in this paper, and the discussion of humic acid on sierozem soil is analyzed in more detail.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript deal with Analysis of water infiltration characteristics and hydraulic parameters of Sierozem Soil under humic acid addition. This study is of certain significance for improving the water retention of sierozem soil,but the article was a little crude, and the innovation point is insufficient，the content is not deep enough. It would improve the quality after major revision.
1. What are the physical and chemical properties of The soil?
2. Where does humic acid come from and what is its chemical composition？
3. Are The mixed soil samples screened and crushed?
4. Does 40cm include 5 cm layer of quartz sand at the bottom of their cylinder in the line 105?
5. The lower boundary is not fully written in the formula 9！
6. Compared with whichr treatment, the movement of wet front is slower in the line 183-184?
7. Why do measured values come from the literature in the line 259?
8. What's the point of doing a simulation? Are parameters calibrated and verified in Fig 5?
9. Please write sierozem soil and limestone soil with the same words.
10 The data were not analyzed statistically in this manuscript.
11. There is no special discussion in this manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor,
On behalf of my co-authors, thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise the manuscript. We appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Analysis of water infiltration characteristics and hydraulic parameters of Sierozem Soil under humic acid addition”. We are very sorry to update the revised manuscript so late because of language improvement and the discussion section was added.
In the revised version, we have addressed the concerns of the reviewers. An point by point response to the reviewers’ comments is enclosed, and the main revision was marked in the manuscript. We hope that these revisions successfully address their concerns and requirements and that this manuscript will be accepted. Look forward to hearing from you soon.
Best wishes.
Xian Ma
The response to the second reviewer
1.What are the physical and chemical properties of The soil?
Response: Table 1 has been added to illustrate the physical and chemical properties of sierozem soil.
2.Where does humic acid come from and what is its chemical composition？
Response: lines 321-335: the source and chemical composition of humic acid are supplemented.
3.Are The mixed soil samples screened and crushed?
Response: line 110: we add the sentense of “the mixed soil sample has been screened and crushed, and we have reformulated the language.”
4.Does 40cm include 5 cm layer of quartz sand at the bottom of their cylinder in the line 105?
Response: lines 115-120:40cm does not include the 5 cm quartz sand layer, and we have reformulated the language.
5.The lower boundary is not fully written in the formula 9！
Response: the error in formula 9 has been checked and corrected.We have revised the formula to
6.Compared with whichr treatment, the movement of wet front is slower in the line 183-184?
Response: lines 204-206: “compared with CK, the wetting front is slower” which has been modified in the article.
7.Why do measured values come from the literature in the line 259?
Response: lines 291-293: the measured values all come from experiment, we have corrected it.
8.What's the point of doing a simulation? Are parameters calibrated and verified in Fig 5?
Response: lines 274-280: the meaning of simulation has been added to Part 3.5 of the article. Line 298-305: parameters in FIG. 5 are calibrated and verified, and MAE, RMSE and D are selected to evaluate the simulation results (Table 5).
9.Please write sierozem soil and limestone soil with the same words.
Response: the full text was examined and the expression "sierozem soil" was used uniformly.
10.The data were not analyzed statistically in this manuscript.
Response: in Part 3.5 of this article, a new statistical analysis is added to the data in Table 4.
11.There is no special discussion in this manuscript.
Response: the structure of the article has been restructured and a discussion has been added in Section 4 of the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Line 11: why is it critical? What is Sierozem soil?
Line 14: what limestone soil?
Line 16: why the two decimal places? What is CK?
Line 18: Kostiakov is described as “more accurately” describing the infiltration process. More accurately than what?
Line 30: “the properties and structure” Properties and structure of what? Do you mean soil properties and structure? Clarify the text.
Line 31: “existed”? The word is not transitive. Say instead: “humic acid is widespread in soil and water.”
Line 37: remove “had”
Line 38: remove “at home and foreign”
Line 42: clarify this sentence
Line 66: researches is not a noun (or a word). You probably mean “studies”
Line 68: you haven’t mentioned any problems. You probably mean “gaps in knowledge” or something like that
Line 73: These aren’t objectives, they are processes or methods. Your objectives would be to characterize the influence of humic acid addition on the hydraulic properties of the soil, probably.
Please discuss and define what you mean by Sierozem soil and tell why it is important to know about its hydraulic properties with and without additions of humic acid. The reader doesn’t know how or why you are using the term Sierozem or what you mean by it.
Line 88: Please clarify the sentence ending “the annual changes were obvious, high evaporation.” What does this mean?
Line 93: what is a breeding base?
Line 96: replace “experiment” with “device”
Line 98: what was the material of the column? Was it glass or plastic? What kind of plastic?
Line 102: replace “their cylinder” with “the cylinder”
Line 123: Try instead: “In this study we used the Phillip model … to simulate…”
Line 139: Please change “the simulation is simulated” to “the infiltration is simulated” as appropriate
Figure 2: Y axis should be “Wetting front depth (cm)”
Line 189: “is” and “indicators” Fix single/plural disagreement
Line 211-227: was this paragraph written by a different author? The language is elegant and no longer clunky, very fluent.
Line 243: change “decline degree of soil water” to “decline I n degree of soil water”
Line 246: comma should be semicolon. Zhao should be capitalized. Space inserted before Zhao.
Line 277: Change “Compared” to “Comparing”
Line 283: Change “con cluded” to “concluded”
Line 290: Change “and hold more water” to “and cause Sierozem soil to hold more water.”
Author Response
Dear Editor,
On behalf of my co-authors, thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise the manuscript. We appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Analysis of water infiltration characteristics and hydraulic parameters of Sierozem Soil under humic acid addition”. We are very sorry to update the revised manuscript so late because of language improvement and the discussion section was added.
In the revised version, we have addressed the concerns of the reviewers. An point by point response to the reviewers’ comments is enclosed, and the main revision was marked in the manuscript. We hope that these revisions successfully address their concerns and requirements and that this manuscript will be accepted. Look forward to hearing from you soon.
Best wishes.
Xian Ma
The response to the third reviewer
The grammatical errors of lines 31, 38, 42, 66, 68, 96, 102, 123, 139, 189, 243, 246, 277, 283, and 290 have all been corrected in the new manuscript. We have used the language editing service recommended by water journal, hoping to express the research results more accurately.
Below are various responses to other comments:
1.Line 11: why is it critical? What is Sierozem soil?
Response: in lines 52, 70-81, the reasons are explained in the introduction. In part 2.1, the characteristics and distribution of sierozem soil are explained in detail. Table 1 is added to explain the basic properties of sierozem soil.
- Line 14: what limestone soil?
Response: the full text was examined and the expression "sierozem soil" was used uniformly.
3.Line 16: why the two decimal places? What is CK?
Response: line 18: Two decimal places already guarantee the accuracy of the data, so choose two decimal places. 0 is CK, which has been added in the article.
4.Line 18: Kostiakov is described as “more accurately” describing the infiltration process. More accurately than what?
Response: line 20: we reorganizes the language. Between Philip, Horton, and Kostiakov, Kostiakov is more accurate.
5.Line 30: “the properties and structure” Properties and structure of what? Do you mean soil properties and structure? Clarify the text.
Response: it has been clarified in the paper: the properties and structure of soil.
- These aren’t objectives, they are processes or methods. Your objectives would be to characterize the influence of humic acid addition on the hydraulic properties of the soil, probably.
Response: lines 81-88: objectives have been revised, objectives have been revised to describe the effects of the addition of humic acid on soil hydraulic properties.
- Please discuss and define what you mean by Sierozem soil and tell why it is important to know about its hydraulic properties with and without additions of humic acid. The reader doesn’t know how or why you are using the term Sierozem or what you mean by it.
Response: line 52, 70-81, we revised the introduction part, explained the importance of hydraulics characteristics, and explained the significance of adding humic acid to sierozem soil by starting from the problems of the occurrence of sierozem soil in Yinchuan plain. In part 2.1, the characteristics and distribution of sierozem soil are explained in detail. Table 1 is added to explain the basic properties of sierozem soil.
8.Line 88: Please clarify the sentence ending “the annual changes were obvious, high evaporation.” What does this mean?
Response: line 94: rearranges the sentence structure and clarifies the expression..
9.Line 93: what is a breeding base?
Response: line 107: here is the name of the laboratory, correcting the expression of the laboratory name.
10.Line 98: what was the material of the column? Was it glass or plastic? What kind of plastic?
Response: line 112: “cylindrical organic glass (plastic) column” has been modified to cylindrical organic glass column.
11.Figure 2: Y axis should be “Wetting front depth (cm)”
Response: the Y-axis in Figure 2 has been modified.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Although the author modified the manuscript one by one according to the reviewer's comments, it is difficult to directly see how and where the modification was made in response. Of course, this response does not affect the effect of modification, but I still hoped that the author will pay more attention to this aspect in the future.
