The Cross-Verification of Different Methods for Soil Erosion Assessment of Natural and Agricultural Low Slopes in the Southern Cis-Ural Region of Russia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The authors compared different methods of soil erosion assessment on Luvic Chernozems under forest, meadow, and arable land in the Southern Cis-Ural Russia. Direct measurements of erosion included plot studies under natural and simulated rainfall, soil-morphological analysis and 137Cs inventory. The rates of erosion were compared to predictions of soil loss with WaTEM/SEDEM and SHI models. The former was used to assess rainfall induced erosion, and the latter erosion from snowmelt. The studies showed that results of model simulations were close to direct measurements of erosion and deposition on slopes. The authors pointed that prediction of erosion from snowmelt was fragile on the increase of temperature due to climate changes in the studied region.

In my opinion, the manuscript is an interesting and valuable summary of earlier studies on soil erosion. The manuscript contains shortcut of some methods and results, however the details are presented and discussed in the earlier works. I have some small suggestions to part of methodology and style (see: attached file). In my opinion, the presented work could be acceptable for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper under review presents an in-depth assessment of soil erosion dynamics in the Southern Cis-Ural region of Russia, employing both conventional field measurement techniques and contemporary modeling approaches. The study's integration of models, alongside rainfall simulation, offers a comprehensive comparison of different methodologies in measuring soil loss and sedimentation rates across varying land uses. Notably, the study underscores the relevance of radiocesium (137Cs) as a marker for soil redistribution, further enhancing the accuracy of long-term erosion assessments. The significance of this research lies in its exploration of the advantages and limitations of traditional versus modern approaches to understanding soil erosion patterns. 

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the paper. The introduction is comprehensive and informative, making it accessible even to readers who may not be deeply familiar with the subject. The methods are detailed, and the results align well with the study's objectives.

However, I believe there are a few aspects of the paper that should be improved before publication. For example, Table 1, which presents the results, should be moved to the Results section.

The ten lines outlining the research objectives could benefit from being rewritten for clarity. I have proposed a revised version, though of course, it is up to the authors to decide on the final wording—the key point is that the objectives should be clear.

The Results section currently includes a discussion of the findings—particularly regarding ¹³⁷Cs values, and comparisons with other studies in Russia. I suggest changing the section's title to reflect that it covers both results and discussion.

Finally, while the paper provides a strong explanation of the results, it remains focused on the study area's specific findings. In the Conclusions section, it might be beneficial to include a statement on what the international audience can learn from this study in a broader, global context rather than limiting it solely to the research area.

 

Please see also the attached file with some 50 minor comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is good; I suggested some minor modifications in the attached file.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) This manuscript compares the methods of runoff plots, soil-morphological comparison and WATEM/SEDEM models in the southern cis-Ural region of Russia.

2) English editing required. 

3) Can you explain the weakness of the methods?

4)What is the main reason for using these methods?

5) Importance of the study area

6) The significance of the number of repetitions.

7) The conclusion is rather weak. I recommend that it be revised. 

I recommend these articles as an introduction; 

Comparison of Bayesian, k-Nearest Neighbor and Gaussian process regression methods for quantifying uncertainty of suspended sediment concentration prediction,Journal Science of The Total Environment,2022.

Development of a risk-based multi-criteria approach for watershed prioritization with consideration of soil erosion alleviation (case study of Iran)؛Environmental Earth Sciences،2016.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English editing is required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I accept the present manuscript. All the comments have been done.