Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1)     The section "2.1. Overview of the Experimental Site" seems too short. In my opinion, this section could contain a more detailed description of natural conditions of the Experimental Sites. Table 1 does not include all the characteristics. What is the type of soil?

2)     It is necessary to supplement the legend for Figure 6a.

3)     Field photographs would complement the content of the manuscript well.

In my opinion, the manuscript contains interesting material, but needs a little revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is well structured, and the conclusions are based on sufficient analysis of results. Generally, I found this study is relatively novel and fits well into the scope of Applied Sciences. However, I found some very important issues which need to be addressed before considering for acceptance (see my comments section by section)

Abstract

- The abstract highlights the positive outcomes of perennial sweet pea cultivation, such as rainwater absorption and runoff reduction. It would be valuable to provide specific data or statistics to support these claims. For instance, what was the rainfall interception percentage?

- The abstract mentions that the study's outcomes offer practical support for soil and water conservation. Expanding on the practical implications and potential applications of the findings could be beneficial for readers interested in implementing similar conservation measures.

Introduction

- The literature review is not comprehensive. Some recent citations about each topic, are here, and have not been added (I am not one of the authors of the following citations)

** L 44-48: Add more citations (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106410)

** L 55-58: This strategy is called: soil bioengineering via roots (see these papers: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05764-z; https://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-018-0021-2).

- L 108-115: Be clear in this part. Add research objectives and research hypothesis.

- In the introduction, authors should add a paragraph about the role of plant canopy in rainfall interception and decreasing soil erosion (see for example these papers:

** Global review of rainfall interception and canopy water storage of plant canopies: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29702-2_4

** Global review of throughfall and interception of vegetation: https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology7040076

** Rainfall interception and canopy water storage capacity of maize plant: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2019.100656

 

Materials and Methods

- Add coordinates to figure 1. 

- L 132-143: Add a photo of data collection.

- L 171-177: Add a citation.

- L 181: Why these intervals? Do you have any citation to support?

Results

- The x-axis is in chinese language. 

Discussion

- overall, try to enhance and enrich this section by using the above-mentioned papers (and also more papers on scientific database). 

- L 353:363: Expand this part with literature. Your work is not first work in the world to tackle this issue, so please use literatures (be sure, I am not one of authors of abovementioned papers, and those are just sample papers).

- L 365-366: When you use "some studies", you need to add at least three citations to support your statement.  

- L 374: "Numerous studies", add at least 5 citations (check my comment about the soil bioengineering via roots, in introduction section).

- At the end of discussion, I would like to see a paragraph about the research implications, research limitations, and future directions.

Conclusion

No comment. 

None.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed my comments very well, so I have decided to accept this paper. Congratulations!