Next Article in Journal
Plant Organic Matter Really Matters: Pedological Effects of Kūpaoa (Dubautia menziesii) Shrubs in a Volcanic Alpine Area, Maui, Hawai’i
Previous Article in Journal
Soil N2O, CH4, and CO2 Fluxes in Forest, Grassland, and Tillage/No-Tillage Croplands in French Guiana (Amazonia)
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Drainage in Layered Soils Using a Soil Drainability Index

by Ali Mehmandoost Kotlar 1,*, Bo V. Iversen 2 and Quirijn de Jong van Lier 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Submission received: 10 March 2019 / Revised: 11 April 2019 / Accepted: 12 April 2019 / Published: 16 April 2019

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to the manuscript (soilsystems-471233-peer-review-v1) entitled “Machine learning based prediction of drainage in layered soils using a soil drainability index”.

Comprehensive knowledge regarding rainfall partitioning over the soil water balance components plays a very important role in agricultural water management, as wel as in goundwater protection. This paper proposed a soil drainability index (SDI) for drainage estimation, based on the near saturated hydraulic conductivity in layered soil and tested its validity through numerical simulation. It is original work and the content is of great scientific interesting to the reader of Soil Systems. The manuscript was well prepared and acceptable for publication in Soil Systems after minor revision.

General comments:

The effect of macropore on the water flow in soil is quite different among different soils. So, maybe different near saturation pressure head could be adopted in SDI.

Specific comments

In Table1, Why such a high Ks for clay (soil D)? macropore?

Line 214, it should be “testing stage”.

In Fig.2, Fig.3, I don’t think “cm month-1” is a proper expression, replace with “cm per month”.

Line 249, replace with “in drier- than rainy-months”.

Lin 249, don’t understand this sentence, “this propagates to…..”

In Fig.5, the legend is missed.

Line 368, delet “the”, it should be “In present work….”

Author Response

We kindly appreciate your review and comments on the paper.

General comments:

The effect of macropore on the water flow in soil is quite different among different soils. So, maybe different near saturation pressure head could be adopted in SDI.

Response to General comment

We do also agree that the macropore attribute of soils is a relative definition and different from soil to soil, however, in this work we already tested the definition of SDI at 5 and 10 cm however, the final obtained SDIs were not correlated with drainage. Various near-saturated hydraulic conductivities to be applied in SDI for soils except tropical (as in this work), can be assessed.

Specific comments:

In Table1, Why such a high Ks for clay (soil D)?

Author response: We understand the doubt of the reviewer, but it is important to remember that here we deal with a 1:1 clay tropical soil, so in the first place Ks values cannot be compared to 2:1 clay soils with similar clay contents. The soil in question is an oxisol, and in these soils it is not uncommon for the density to decrease and Ks to increase due to a stable microporous network. As a matter of fact, it can be seen that porosity increases for the deep layers of this soil.

Line 214, it should be “testing stage”.  Author response: Corrected

In Fig.2, Fig.3, I don’t think “cm month-1” is a proper expression, replace with “cm per month”.Author response: Corrected

Line 249, replace with “in drier- than rainy-months”. Author response: Corrected

Lin 249, don’t understand this sentence, “this propagates to…..” Author response: This is attributed to

In Fig.5, the legend is missed. Author response: The labels besides axes clarify the legends

Line 368, delete “the”, it should be “In present work….” Author response: Corrected

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

My comments are included in the attached pdf file. In my opinion, your methodology is robust and your results are consistent. In addition, the article is generally well-written. Nevertheless I am missing some aclaratory information in the Introduction section, some methodological aspects are explained with so details and there is a confusion regarding crops or pasture in the subsection 3.3. that it must be clarified accordingly.

Sincerely,

Reviewer #

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We kindly appreciate your review and comments on the paper.

Comments are replied according to their line numbers and changes are all applied in the new uploaded text

Line23: Corrected

Line 26: Introduction has been improved

Line40: added

Line 57,59 and 62: corrected

Line 73: the caption of the table is auto explicative

Line 129: Done as suggested by the reviewer

Line 130: Corrected

Line 160: The whole section was summarized and extra parts were trimmed

Line 269 and 271: corrected

Line 303: As stated before, one of the scenarios refers to a continuous and constant pasture such what is used for reference ET

Line 437: References are corrected

Back to TopTop