Water Retention Evaluation of Slab Trench on Rocky Desertification Slope in a Karst Area of Southwest China
, Shan Gao 2,†, Qiming Zhong 3, Lijuan Fan 1, Qi Luo 2, Qun Chen 1, Zechang Zhou 4 and Xunhong Zhu 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In general, the paper by Liu et al introduced a new slab trench capable of soil and water in layer on rocky desertification slopes, which is significant for solving the problem of soil erosion and water loss in rocky desertification slopes. Meanwhile, the manuscript is well structured and organized, and the figures and tables are rich. Therefore, I strongly suggest it to be published in the Water.
Author Response
Response to the review comments in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript provides useful information to help us understand the effects of rainfall intensity and the number of plants on water storing and holding capacity of vegetated slab trench models under rainfall and then followed dry conditions, However, some key projects had problems and needed better clarification, and the manuscript had problems in form. In the specific chapters, the organization of the paper is chaotic and complex, which is difficult to understand correctly.
1. Lines 41-46: Although the author gave the broad background to the study in the first paragraph of the introduction, it is somewhat redundant. It also does not properly introduce the sub-areas of the study.
2. Lines 80-95: This paragraph details the experimental steps of the article, but it should not be in the introduction.
3. The aim/objective of the study did not appear in the introduction and I do not understand the author's real motivation.
4. I think you could move the section "2. Background of the in-situ Rock Desertification Slope" to "3. Materials and Methods Materials and Methods", and it needs to be condensed.
5. In general, I think the introduction needs to be rewritten.
6.165: Why did you choose "Begonia semperflorens" as the test material?
7. The text of the figure notes in Figure 8 and Figure 9 has the wrong units for "Cumulative infiltration".
8. The conclusions and recommendations are too wordy.
9.In fact, in Results and Discussion I only see the analysis of the results. The authors did not develop the discussion of the results. In addition the language is not refined.
Author Response
Response to the review comments in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript brings an interesting content with a series of data, but some aspects missing as pointed out in the text and data of the characteristics of soils placed in the experiment as degree of compaction, permeability, void index and others do not allow a better use by the reader of the results contained in the manuscript.
The results are scattered, could be presented in a more objective way, and the analyses and discussions could involve the different aspects.
It is essential to present as a conclusion what are the conditions that should be considered for the case of field use of soil characteristics to obtain results similar to those obtained in the experiments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to the review comments in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This research article was well edited based on authors' original research results.
Since there were some problems and editing errors, this research article should have to revise before publication as one of research articles for international journal(s).
Please refer followings.
[Major reversion]
1. Title
Please use more specific and simple title which may be understand easily.
EX.) Water retaining feasibility of ~ at "area", "nation".
Water retaining evaluation of ~at "area", "nation".
2. Objective(s)
Authors need to consider why is this research important on the viewpoint of globalization.
3. Discussion
If possible, please separate "Discussion" part from "Results and discussion".
4. Conclusions
I think that these contents are just simple summary of experimental results.
Authors need to add their originality, understanding in "Conclusions" part.
5. Applicability in "Conclusions" part
Authors need to consider the applicability of this research article.
So what? Where and how can we apply based on the results of this research article?
[Minor reversion]
6. Sub-title of Figures
Ex.) a) Construction of stepped slab trench ~
Figure 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,19, 20, 21 and 23.
7. Unit expression
Numbers blank unit: 280 m etc., except %
All related data need to revise in this research article.
8. Same effective numbers at least 3 or more
Ex.) EFNs 3: 98.0, 148, 0.100 etc.
Table 3.
9. 3.3.3. Experiment ---> Experiments
10. References
If possible, please use current references within 5 years.
Author Response
Response to the review comments in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The author has modified it according to the suggestion. I think this paper can be accepted.
Author Response
Response to the review comments in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Since this revised research article was well edited based on reviewer's comments, this research article may suitable for the publication as one of research articles in international journal, "Water".
However, some minor parts still need to revise before the publication of this research article.
Previous comment 5) and 7)
Please use main caption for each Figure and then use sub-title in each Figure.
Ex.) Figure
a) Sub-title
Figure 1. Figure caption etc.
Please re-consider the concept of effective numbers.
Table 3.
EFNs 3 EFNs 2 EFN 1 EFNs 3
98.0 1.0 1 225
148 1.0 1 225
222 1.0 1 225
222 0.00 0.0 90.0
222 3.0 3 225
Author Response
Response to the review comments in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
