Linking Soil Hydrology and Creep: A Northern Andes Case

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors and editor, I consider that the paper is very interesting and the topic falls within the scope of the journal. The ms aims to investigate a relevant issue that affects several areas over the world. I find that the authors should include more specific information in the abstract about the methods and implications of the study. In the intro, there are mixed parts between the intro and study area, please, take care of this. I would not use figures in the intro. In the study area, there are several paragraphs without references. Also, I miss a sub-chapter about how the data were treated statistically. There are too many figures, I would merge the figures with photos. See more comments in my attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents field measurements of the rainfall, runoff, percolation, water table elevation, and soil moisture content at two points of a rectangular study area, and of the surface displacement of thirteen cylindrical concrete blocks in a northern Andean hillslope during a two-years period with the purpose of exploring the relationships between soil water dynamics and creep. This subject is relatively well-known, in particular from the landslide field, (e.g. Iverson 2000). The results of the manuscript do not represent a very new, relevant contribution to the Geosciences, except for the local knowledge.

The active and quasi-permanent lateral subsurface water flow mentioned in the Abstract, lines 25-27, has not been measured. In the section 6, Summary and conclusions, the “…significant variation of texture, structure, and therefore in hydraulic conductivity…” (lines 473-474), has not been presented in the text, except for the statements of lines 136-138. The effects of soil particle expansion and contraction described in lines 479-483 of the same section, Summary and conclusions, are not based on measurements described in the manuscript.

Being an interesting field work, the study of the soil hydrology contains severe defects:

1. The soil is poorly described. The measurements were made at two sites, plots 1 and 2, whose profiles could be different, according to the lines 146-147. The soil profiles have very different horizons, as line 138 indicates. Nevertheless, there is no information on the relevant soil parameters. Even the depth of the moisture sensors, line 226, could not be related to the soil horizons, line 138, in spite of the statement of lines 226-227. The values of the moisture content at the states of field capacity, permanent wilting point, and even saturation, mentioned in lines 235-237 should be presented in a table.
2. The mentioned expansion and contraction processes in lines 402-404, should have been measured, or, at least, described in the section 2.
3. Given the relatively fast lowering of the water table for a clay soil during the dry intervals, as seen in figure 7, the authors should have included in the text the data of potential evapotranspiration, to understand the rate of the process. The reference [32] imply some interest in the evaporation processes.
4. Was the rain information reliable given the distance from the plots to the rain gauges in such a hilly countryside (lines 240-241)?

Was not possible to measure the soil displacements with a fixed reference (section 3.2)?

The results were properly presented except for the rainfall in the figures 7, 8 and 9 with indistinguishable colors; for the soil moisture data in figure 9 for the same reason; and for the displacement vectors of figure 10 at a very small scale.

The highest values of the weekly runoff data of figure 8b and d, indicated that the runoff tank volume was full, (last file of Table 1), and possibly the same effect could be found in the weekly percolation data of figures 8c and e. The volume of the recipients were not well dimensioned.

The figure 11 needs a more complete explanation in the caption.

Reference

Iverson, R.M. 2000. Landslide triggering by rain infiltration. Water Resour. Res. 36:1897-1910.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors followed all my suggestions and can be accepted. Great contribution to the science!

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version of the manuscript is correct