Evaluation of Infiltration Modeling in the Cisadane Watershed in Indonesia: Existing and New Approach Equation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article entitled "Evaluation of infiltration modeling: existing and new approach equation" presents a good analysis regarding the proposition of new infiltration equations (this is the greatest merit), and also the calibration of classical equations for different regions and types of soil.

- The introduction and its scientific justification are poor; can be greatly improved, addressing existing platforms for this variable (such as https://soil-modeling.org/resources-links/data-portal/swig) and recent articles (such as https://doi.org/10.3390/ land11060779)

- How much time (period) preceded the in situ measurements/data collections were the land uses described in Table 1?

- It is also recommended to use the statistical indicators MBE (mean relative error) and Willmott's agreement index (d); in conjunction with RMSE, authors will be able to infer over/underestimates, the spread of estimated data for the same value of X and the adjustment between measurements and estimates;

- Conduct a non-parametric statistical analysis (Kruskal Wallis) for the initial and final infiltration rates, considering the models and field measurements (it would complement Table 3).

- The authors do not present a "Discussion" of the results that support the conclusions; there is a lack of associations regarding soil types and land use, among other factors/relationships that can influence water infiltration.

After these corrections, the article has the potential to be published.

Author Response

Dear our value Reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses on the attachment file (PDF) and the corresponding revisions/ corrections in the revision file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study has made a significant contribution to infiltration modeling by a new form equation with optimized parameters. However, the manuscript requires major revisions before it can be considered for publication. It is very essential to add the discussions of the data. Detailed comments on the necessary revisions are as follows:

1. The introduction of this study appears to be insufficiently detailed. It is recommended that the authors examine and discuss more similar studies in the field to identify the context and significance of the manuscript.

2. First paragraph of the introduction discuss the importance of groundwater, but it is not closely related to the content of this study.

3. Line 56 and 57: More details are needed about an indifference equation form approach.

4.Lines 69-74 should be revised to more clearly introduce the objectives of the study.

5.Line 99: poitns should be modified to points

6. Figure 1 should add the specific locations of the survey points.

7. Table 1 should add the source of these characteristics.

8.Line 124: More details are needed about the establish process of the several indifference equations and the reason for being selected.

9. Table 2 and Table 4: “-1”in “cm h-1”should be superscripted.

10. There is a serious lack of comparative analysis from other researchers in discussion, which very important and necessary.

11.In this study, equation 1 is the best-fitting infiltration model for the Cisadane watershed case. But the reason for this result is not clear. This requires more detailed discussions.

It is essential to revise the manuscript with a professional English. 

Author Response

Dear our value Reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses on the attachment file (PDF) and the corresponding revisions/ corrections in the revision file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Lines 38-54: The authors should add some latest research progress, most of the literature is too old and not easy to understand the latest development.

2. Lines 69-74: I think the authors should introduce their experimental methods and research objectives in the last paragraph, instead of writing such a paragraph here, which is complicated and cumbersome.

3. Line 76: I think the author should refer to "2.1 Data collection" as "Study area, experimental methods and data collection" because it does not only include the study area, experimental methods and data collection.

4. Lines 95-97: While I see soil texture at each study site, no soil type is given?

5. The discussions should be expanded on the basis of the results.

6. Some of the pictures are not very aesthetically pleasing, e.g. Fig. 3.

7. Based on the whole manuscript, the title of the manuscript is very broad and the author's study area is in the watersheds of Indonesia, I think some qualifiers such as study area should be added to this as it may not be informative for other landform types in other parts of the world.

English should be improved.

Author Response

Dear our value Reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses on the attachment file (PDF) and the corresponding revisions/ corrections in the revision file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made some of the changes recommended in the first review, therefore, I express a favorable opinion for "minor adjustments", as we are still awaiting the inclusion of items 4 and 5 (which the authors indicate that they are analyzing for future inclusion). After these inclusions, I will express a definitive opinion. Additionally, here are some small suggestions:

- I only suggest changing the title proposed in the second revision, to:

"Evaluation of infiltration modeling in the Cisadane watershed in Indonesia: existing and new approach equation"

- Eliminate the keyword "infiltration", as it is already in the title of the article; insert other words that enhance the search for the article

Author Response

Dear our value Reviewer,

Warm greetings from Indonesia

we would like to response the comments with the following explanations and revisions made as file attached. We hope that our revised manuscript could satisfy and meet the reviewer’s expectation. Thank you.

Best regards,

Dina P.A Hidayat

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised manuscript is satisfactory and the previous problems have been basically resolved.

Author Response

Dear our value Reviewer, 

We really appreciate your comment, Thank you for your willingness to review our article

Best regards,

Dina P. A Hidayat