Development of an ArcGIS-Pro Toolkit for Assessing the Effects of Bridge Construction on Overland Soil Erosion
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The concept of the article is very good if written properly it can be one of the best article. However I am having some observations:
Introduction portion is not well written. Plz re-write the introduction portion with more background and some review of development of model used for agricultural purpose
Figure 3 is not visible properly, improve its quality
My main observation is, the authors are developing a tool for ArcGIS and they have tried to show their result using only one site. My suggestion is to take at least three sites and see the results using your tool. See whether the results are coming consistent or not.
Then this article can be accepted for publication
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
in general, your manuscript is ok and relatively easy to follow. However, I have some doubts that should be addressed before publication.
General comments are reported below, but please refer to the attachment for more detailed comments.
- the toolbar could be a very helpful tool for water/environmental managers, but the novelty of the study is not completely clear as the review of the state-of-art is not properly done. Please provide more references to corroborate your statements;
- double-check the spelling, especially of the acronyms used for the methods;
- in general, it's better to use international units rather than the US system. So, I suggest re-arranging the equations accounting for this. Please note that this is also a Journal requirement (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions). I understand that the toolbar is developed for US, so maybe add a note on that. Moreover, please be consistent in using the units;
- the lack of details impacts negatively the study. Indeed, it is very hard to replicate the research results. I suggest re-working on the text, considering that other researchers could be interested in replicating your approach to similar contexts;
- the results provided here are encouraging, but it is hard to judge the quality of the proposed toolbar just by looking at one single example. I understand that the available data are limited, but I suggest expanding the discussion and acknowledging such a limitation more in detail, also suggesting some future directions;
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I am satisfied with the reply of made by the authors.
The article may be accepted in present form
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author,
thank you very much for having clarified my doubts and updating the manuscript accordingly with my comments.
I think this work is ready for publication, but some typos remain:
line 238: this should read MUSLE
line 832/838: should read USLE
