Applicability of the Modified Green-Ampt Model Based on Suction Head Calculation in Water-Repellent Soil
, Xing Zhang 1,2, Yangyang Xu 1,2, Youzhen Xiang 1,2 and Junying Chen 1,2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors modified the well-known Green-Ampt model to take into account the effects of SWR. The topic is quite novel and the study interesting. The methods are suitable and the results well presented. However, I think that the authors should work more to better present the paper (mainly on a formal point of view). My suggestions are reported in the commented MS in attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer Comments and Major Revisions
(Responses in Blue Text)
Comments from Reviewer
- The abstract lacks numerical results.
Re: Thanks for your comments. We have added some numerical results about the accuracy of three modify model in abstract (Line21 - 24).
- More references from the last few years could be added to the Introduction.
Re: Thanks for your comments. We have added some references from the last few years in manuscript (Line 39, 43, 57, 60).
- The figures are of low quality.
Re: Thanks for your comments. We have modified all the figure in manuscript. You can find it in the manuscript.
- The discussion should be more detailed and include more references.
Re: Thanks for your comments. We have added some detailed information and relevant references in Discussion. On the other hand, we have added some details to the discussion, mainly including the understanding and comparison of previous studies in the Discussion section (Line 326 – 335; Line 370 - 375).
- Future research should be indicated in detail.
Re: Sorry for unclear description. We have added the future research in Conclusion section (Line 392 - 395).
6 Citations and references should be in accordance with the journal's requirements.
Re: Thanks for your comments We have improved the references in the manuscript.
Finally, thanks once again to the Editors and Reviewers for giving us such valuable comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors proposed modified models based on suction head. The VG model was very accurate. The results are promising.
The abstract lacks numerical results.
More references from the last few years could be added to the Introduction.
The figures are of low quality.
The discussion should be more detailed and include more references.
Future research should be indicated in detail.
Citations and references should be in accordance with the journal's requirements.
There are some errors.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer Comments and Major Revisions
(Responses in Blue Text)
Comments from Reviewer
- The abstract lacks numerical results.
Re: Thanks for your comments. We have added some numerical results about the accuracy of three modify model in abstract (Line21 - 24).
- More references from the last few years could be added to the Introduction.
Re: Thanks for your comments. We have added some references from the last few years in manuscript (Line 39, 43, 57, 60).
- The figures are of low quality.
Re: Thanks for your comments. We have modified all the figure in manuscript. You can find it in the manuscript.
- The discussion should be more detailed and include more references.
Re: Thanks for your comments. We have added some detailed information and relevant references in Discussion. On the other hand, we have added some details to the discussion, mainly including the understanding and comparison of previous studies in the Discussion section (Line 326 – 335; Line 370 - 375).
- Future research should be indicated in detail.
Re: Sorry for unclear description. We have added the future research in Conclusion section (Line 392 - 395).
6 Citations and references should be in accordance with the journal's requirements.
Re: Thanks for your comments We have improved the references in the manuscript.
Finally, thanks once again to the Editors and Reviewers for giving us such valuable comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Figures are still unreadable.
Author Response
Has been submitted as requiredAuthor Response File: Author Response.docx
