Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject is interesting. Overall the paper is well-structured, and by giving enough background information, outlining the technique, and showcasing the findings and appropriate discussion, the authors were able to offer helpful knowledge in this field. However, the paper is acceptable after a few minor corrections:

Introduction:

Lines 42-43: There is a problem with the structure of the sentence and should be corrected.

Line 62: bring the year after the name of the researcherà Owen (1964)…. , please check in whole of the text.

Line 65: The Wind Erosion Equation (WEQ) is the first model that…., à for this section I recommended bringing some previous research and literature and compare with current research.

Material and methods

 

Lines 110-111: Weather Research Forecast (WRF) models are widely used … à Provide source(s)/ References

Author Response

We want to thank the reviewer for constructive comments on our manuscript. Revisions have been made. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have read the article titled “Estimates of dust emissions and organic carbon losses induced by wind erosion in farmland worldwide from 2017 to 2021” Some grammatical misusages and some incomprehensible sentences have been detected in the article. I added some minor suggestions in the PDF file.

 

Title

The title is clear and shows the manuscript.

Abstract

Some grammatical misusages have been detected in this part. The last sentence needs to mention your study's key points.

 

Introduction

There is also a grammatical problem here. Some important sentences should be cited from recent studies. I think a better literature review is needed in this part.

Material and Method

There is also a grammatical problem here. In this part, The methodology is written well and understandable.

Results

There is also a grammatical problem here. This section of the manuscript is clear, relevant, and presented well. The manuscript’s results are reproducible based on the details given in the methods section.

Discussion

This section of the manuscript needs to be discussed with the most recent studies on the side of clear, relevant and presented well.

Conclusion

There are many shortcomings in this part. A sufficient conclusion has not been reached about the importance of this study for now and for the future. This part should be rewritten.

The figures/tables/images/schemes are appropriate and they are properly showing the data.

 

I would like to reconsider after major revision in line with the recommendations.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We want to thank the reviewer for constructive comments on our manuscript. Revisions have been made. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is of interest to experts in the field of soil erosion assessment. To obtain initial estimates of the relationship between wind erosion of agricultural land and dust particles in the atmosphere, the presented modeling methods are quite suitable. Of course, the model is not yet completely perfect and does not take into account data on the origin of dust particles, as well as the possible contribution of urban soils to the total mass of aerosols in the atmosphere. Despite some shortcomings, the manuscript can be recommended for publication.

Author Response

We want to thank the reviewer for constructive comments on our manuscript. Revisions have been made. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The article became more understandable and beautiful after the revision. There's nothing wrong with accepting it.