Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors assess the water retention and rainwater absorption by different types, sizes and densities of six organic mulch coverings that are widely available in the Brazilian semi-arid. The work seems interesting. However, the manuscript is not well written and needs to be improved. The format of sample codes, factors, etc. should be standardised throughout the manuscript, certain questions need to be answered, and some parts of the manuscript need to be corrected to fully reflect the content of the article.

The article's title should be rewritten to reflect the content of the manuscript and to indicate in some way that the work was an assessment. The reviewer suggests adding “Assessment of water retention and absorption…”.

Line 20, line 28, etc.:  The authors have not use italic fonts for " Brachiaria", which may not be usual. Brachiaria should be written in italics as it refers to taxonomic gender.

Line 21-22: The authors should clarify what size refers to.

Line 26: The authors must unify the format: use "-" or use to.

Line 26-27: Relative to what? Water retention and absorption? The authors should clarify this point.

Line 118-120: This sentence corresponds more to a discussion based on the criteria for selecting types of organic mulches. The reviewer recommends moving it to the discussion section in order to enrich the discussion on the type of organic mulch cover, which is currently very poor.

Line 124: The higher carbon/nitrogen ratio should be explained in the introduction as another factor to be considered as a selection criterion for the organic mulches used in this study. This will give a better understanding of the data and selection criteria of organic mulches presented between lines 125-127.

Line 132: The reviewer recommends a brief explanation of the drying process mentioned.

Line 145: Missing superscript in m3. The reviewer recommends correcting this.

Lines 163-167: The reviewer suggests moving this paragraph to the discussion section. This section does not provide information on materials and methods.

Lines 182 -183 and lines 191-196: The authors should homogenise variable names between equations and clarifications. For example, where it says w_t and w_dry, write as in the equation with sub-index: W_t and W_dry (lines 182-183).

The results of the analysis of variance are presented in Tables 2, 3 and 4, showing all the data provided by the analysis performed. The reviewer suggests that these tables could be provided as supplementary material. Thus, in the main manuscript, a single table could be provided showing the main results and the significant differences between the different variables (initial depth retention angle α (°), water retention and drained seepage depth) according to the factors: mulch type, size and density.

Line 264-265: Rewrite the sentences by removing the typed full stop. Where it says “For the worst rainwater retention conditions 264, maize leaf (CO), and sugar cane leaf (SU). Were observed (Fig. 5a)”; it should say “For the worst rainwater retention conditions 264, maize leaf (CO), and sugar cane leaf (SU) were observed (Fig. 5a)”.

The reviewer assumes that the red asterisks in Figures 6 and 7 are outliers, but the authors should clarify this in the figure legend. 

Line 290: The authors should indicate where are showing the statistical values (table or figure) that make it possible to affirm that “Coconut Leaf was low, being the smallest statistically.”

In Figures 6 and 9, the legend does not explain what the superindex a, b, c and d and their combinations mean. In addition, why have these superindex, which appear to indicate significant differences, not been included in Figures 7 and 8? Clarify this question. 

In Figure 10, the names of the variables and factors are not well presented in the legends. Moreover, the figure legend is not well written: it is repetitive, the names of the factors are not consistent, the information necessary to interpret the graph is not provided, and the legends are blurred. In its current format, the graph is difficult to interpret. It should be improved by taking into account all the points made by the reviewer above.

In Table 5, the meaning of 1;200, 2;200 is missing.

Line 449: The species must be written in italics.

Line 459-471: Data not presented in the results appear in the conclusion. It is not acceptable for the conclusion to contain for the first time data that has not been presented in the Results section and discussed previously. After all, a conclusion is the final synthesis of the results obtained and the discussion of them, summarising the key points and main ideas extracted. The authors should improve the manuscript by including and discussing these results in the appropriate Results and Discussion sections. If included, the conclusion may be accepted as written. 

Author Response

Comments to the Reviewer 1,

 

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your insights and suggestions and have worked diligently to address your concerns. Please rest assured that all your questions have been addressed and your requests have been honored.

 

Comments 1: The authors assess the water retention and rainwater absorption by different types, sizes and densities of six organic mulch coverings that are widely available in the Brazilian semi-arid. The work seems interesting. However, the manuscript is not well written and needs to be improved. The format of sample codes, factors, etc. should be standardised throughout the manuscript, certain questions need to be answered, and some parts of the manuscript need to be corrected to fully reflect the content of the article.

Response: Thank you for your comment. English was fully improved.

 

Comments 2: The article's title should be rewritten to reflect the content of the manuscript and to indicate in some way that the work was an assessment. The reviewer suggests adding “Assessment of water retention and absorption…”.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. It has been accepted, and the title has been adjusted as indicated, reflecting the content of the manuscript and highlighting the assessment aspect of the work.

 

Comments 3: Line 20, line 28, etc.:  The authors have not use italic fonts for " Brachiaria", which may not be usual. Brachiaria should be written in italics as it refers to taxonomic gender.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The formatting issue with Brachiaria has been corrected throughout the manuscript, ensuring that it is consistently italicized as it refers to a taxonomic genus.

 

Comments 4: Line 21-22: The authors should clarify what size refers to.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The clarification regarding the size has been added in lines 21-22 of the text to provide further context and ensure better understanding.

 

Comments 5: Line 26: The authors must unify the format: use "-" or use to.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The format has been unified as per your recommendation

 

Comments 6: Line 26-27: Relative to what? Water retention and absorption? The authors should clarify this point.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The point has been clarified in lines 26-27 to specify that it refers to water retention and absorption, ensuring better clarity in the manuscript.

 

Comments 7: Line 118-120: This sentence corresponds more to a discussion based on the criteria for selecting types of organic mulches. The reviewer recommends moving it to the discussion section in order to enrich the discussion on the type of organic mulch cover, which is currently very poor.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The sentence has been moved to the discussion section as recommended, which has helped to enrich the discussion on the types of organic mulch cover.

 

Comments 8: Line 124: The higher carbon/nitrogen ratio should be explained in the introduction as another factor to be considered as a selection criterion for the organic mulches used in this study. This will give a better understanding of the data and selection criteria of organic mulches presented between lines 125-127.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The higher carbon/nitrogen ratio has been explained in the introduction, as suggested, providing a clearer understanding of the data and the selection criteria for the organic mulches presented between lines 125-127.

 

Comments 9: Line 132: The reviewer recommends a brief explanation of the drying process mentioned.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. A brief explanation of the drying process has been added to line 132, as recommended.

 

Comments 10: Line 145: Missing superscript in m3. The reviewer recommends correcting this.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The superscript in m³ has been added and the correction has been made in line 145.

 

Comments 11: Lines 163-167: The reviewer suggests moving this paragraph to the discussion section. This section does not provide information on materials and methods.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The paragraph has been moved to the discussion section, as it was more appropriate for that part of the manuscript.

 

Comments 12: Lines 182 -183 and lines 191-196: The authors should homogenise variable names between equations and clarifications. For example, where it says w_t and w_dry, write as in the equation with sub-index: Wt and Wdry (lines 182-183).

Response: Thank you for your observation. The variable names have been standardized throughout the manuscript to match the equations, ensuring consistency between lines 182-183 and 191-196.

 

Comments 13: The results of the analysis of variance are presented in Tables 2, 3 and 4, showing all the data provided by the analysis performed. The reviewer suggests that these tables could be provided as supplementary material. Thus, in the main manuscript, a single table could be provided showing the main results and the significant differences between the different variables (initial depth retention angle α (°), water retention and drained seepage depth) according to the factors: mulch type, size and density.

Response: The authors understand that this suggestion could enhance the visualization of the article. However, given the reduced sizes of the tables, the authors believe there is no compromise in keeping them in their respective locations within the manuscript.

 

Comments 14: Line 264-265: Rewrite the sentences by removing the typed full stop. Where it says “For the worst rainwater retention conditions 264, maize leaf (CO), and sugar cane leaf (SU). Were observed (Fig. 5a)”; it should say “For the worst rainwater retention conditions 264, maize leaf (CO), and sugar cane leaf (SU) were observed (Fig. 5a)”.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The sentence has been rewritten as suggested, correcting the misplaced full stop in lines 264-265.

 

Comments 15: The reviewer assumes that the red asterisks in Figures 6 and 7 are outliers, but the authors should clarify this in the figure legend.

Response: Thank you for your observation. The appropriate corrections have been made, and the clarification regarding the red asterisks as outliers has been included in the figure legend for Figures.

 

Comments 16: Line 290: The authors should indicate where are showing the statistical values (table or figure) that make it possible to affirm that “Coconut Leaf was low, being the smallest statistically.”

Response: Thank you for your comment. The indication of where the statistical values are presented has been added to line 290, as recommended.

 

Comments 17: In Figures 6 and 9, the legend does not explain what the superindex a, b, c and d and their combinations mean. In addition, why have these superindex, which appear to indicate significant differences, not been included in Figures 7 and 8? Clarify this question.

Response: Thank you for your observation. The letters above the columns represent the statistical result of the Tukey test. As for Figures 7 and 8, these do not include superindices because they present quantitative results rather than qualitative ones. Improvements have been made to clarify these points in the figure legends.

 

Comments 18: In Figure 10, the names of the variables and factors are not well presented in the legends. Moreover, the figure legend is not well written: it is repetitive, the names of the factors are not consistent, the information necessary to interpret the graph is not provided, and the legends are blurred. In its current format, the graph is difficult to interpret. It should be improved by taking into account all the points made by the reviewer above.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. The legend has been improved, making it clearer and easier to understand.

 

Comments 19:In Table 5, the meaning of 1;200, 2;200 is missing.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The meaning of "1;200" and "2;200" in Table 5 corresponds to density and size, respectively. This has been clarified in the table.

Comments 20: Line 449: The species must be written in italics.

Response: Thank you for your observation. The species have been written in italics, as requested, and the necessary update has been made in line 449.

 

Comments 21: Line 459-471: Data not presented in the results appear in the conclusion. It is not acceptable for the conclusion to contain for the first time data that has not been presented in the Results section and discussed previously. After all, a conclusion is the final synthesis of the results obtained and the discussion of them, summarising the key points and main ideas extracted. The authors should improve the manuscript by including and discussing these results in the appropriate Results and Discussion sections. If included, the conclusion may be accepted as written.

Response:

We will review the manuscript to ensure that the data mentioned in the conclusion are properly presented and discussed in the Results and Discussion sections. After adjustments, the adjusted conclusion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 The paper deals with water retention and absorption of organic mulch under simulated rainfall for soil and water conservation in maize crop. The manuscript is very well written both in English and in structure. The materials and methods meet the objectives of the study and the results are well discussed. The statistical approaches are appropriate. Two minor issues and missing information that should be added before publication.

1/- Please add one or two sentences about the problematic of the study in the abstract.

2/- Please add more information about the study area.

Author Response

Comments to the Reviewer 2,

 

Comments 1: The paper deals with water retention and absorption of organic mulch under simulated rainfall for soil and water conservation in maize crop. The manuscript is very well written both in English and in structure. The materials and methods meet the objectives of the study and the results are well discussed. The statistical approaches are appropriate. Two minor issues and missing information that should be added before publication.

Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for your positive feedback and valuable comments. We are grateful for your acknowledgment of the manuscript's quality in writing, structure, and statistical approaches. The minor issues and missing information pointed out have been addressed, and the necessary adjustments have been made to improve the manuscript further. We appreciate your insights, which have contributed to enhancing the study.

 

Comments 2: Please add one or two sentences about the problematic of the study in the abstract.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. One sentence addressing the problematic of the study has been added to the abstract, as recommended. “The use of organic mulch as a natural practice to enhance water retention and absorption is underexplored, highlighting the need for a deeper understanding of its effectiveness under varying conditions.” The necessary corrections have been made to enhance the clarity and context of the abstract.

 

Comments 3: Please add more information about the study area.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The following paragraph has been added to provide more information about the study area: "Laboratory experiments were conducted in the Agricultural Machinery Laboratory (8° 1’ 3.06” S and 34° 56’ 44.69” W, and altitude of 38 m) of the Agricultural Engineering Department of Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Brazil (UFRPE), in Recife, Pernambuco state, Brazil, using the rainfall simulator."

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Although the topic of your manuscript “investigate the process of interception, retention and absorption of rainwater by different types, sizes and densities of some organic mulch covers” is very interesting and valuable for the scientist as well as for the watershed managers, I must emphasize that in my opinion, the material and method presentation could be improved. The study is too complex that sometimes while reading the graphs, one lost in graphs (like figure 5 to 9 : depth in mm and %age depth )words. Before starting figure 5, The authors should clearly mention about the figures that figures 5 to 9 explains the ………………..

The material and method section should be considerably improved; each study factor should be coherently and briefly explained as well as presented. From the present, it is not clear it is a field study, whether is it a lab plot study or they used rainfall simulator. A few lines should be added about lab controlled plot study experiment. It is advised to add more references and discussion in R&D section. Also a few more lines why authors used PCA.  

Author Response

Comments to the Reviewer 3,

 

Comments 1: Dear authors, Although the topic of your manuscript “investigate the process of interception, retention and absorption of rainwater by different types, sizes and densities of some organic mulch covers” is very interesting and valuable for the scientist as well as for the watershed managers, I must emphasize that in my opinion, the material and method presentation could be improved. The study is too complex that sometimes while reading the graphs, one lost in graphs (like figure 5 to 9 : depth in mm and %age depth )words. Before starting figure 5, The authors should clearly mention about the figures that figures 5 to 9 explains the...

Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for your valuable feedback. We have made a general improvement in the presentation of the material and methods, as well as in the clarity of the figures. The suggestions provided have been addressed, and we have ensured that the relationship between the figures (5 to 9) is clearly explained before the presentation of Figure 5, making the manuscript easier to follow. The legends of the figures were also improved to make the manuscript more clear.

 

Comments 2: The material and method section should be considerably improved; each study factor should be coherently and briefly explained as well as presented. From the present, it is not clear it is a field study, whether is it a lab plot study or they used rainfall simulator. A few lines should be added about lab controlled plot study experiment. It is advised to add more references and discussion in R&D section. Also a few more lines why authors used PCA.

Response:

We appreciate the comments and suggestions to improve our manuscript. We implemented the requested revisions to improve the methodology.

Some comments implemented:

The study was carried out in the hydrological rainfall simulation in laboratory of the agricultural engineering department of the Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, in Recife, where different combinations of mulch densities, shredded material sizes and mulch types organic mulch.

The use of PCA in this study was essential to reduce the dimensionality of the dataset, allowing for the identification of the most influential variables affecting absorption and retention depths. This method enabled the analysis of complex interactions among the factors “size”, “density”, and “type”, highlighting patterns and relationships that would otherwise be challenging to discern in a multivariate context.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

The manuscript is well-structured and presents a valuable contribution to soil and water conservation research, particularly in semiarid regions. It addresses the retention and absorption capacity of different organic mulches, exploring the combined effects of mulch type, size, and density under simulated rainfall conditions. The study fills a crucial gap in understanding the combined roles of these variables and offers practical implications for sustainable soil management.

Abstract

The abstract is well-written and effectively summarizes the objectives, methodology, findings, and implications of the study.

Introduction

The introduction is comprehensive, with a clear problem statement and a well-defined novelty of the research. It includes relevant and current literature, providing a strong foundation.

Material and Methods

The methodology section is detailed and well-documented. The experimental design and the descriptions of methods and simulators are thorough, ensuring the reproducibility of the study.

Results

The results section is concise yet effectively highlights the key findings. The figures and tables complement the narrative, making the presentation of results clear and impactful.

Discussion

The discussion, though brief, is relevant and adequately interprets the results in light of previous studies. It effectively justifies the findings and their significance, although further elaboration on broader implications could enhance the section.

Conclusion

The conclusion is clear and summarizes the findings effectively, tying them to practical applications.

 Suggestions for Improvement

1. Acknowledgment Section:
• The acknowledgment section needs to check
2. Economic Feasibility:
• Insights on the economic feasibility of adopting high-density mulching in semiarid regions would add practical value and help in contextualizing the findings for implementation.
3. Language and Grammar:
• Minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasings should be addressed for improved readability.
4. Conclusions:
• While the conclusions are strong, they would benefit from including specific thresholds or guidelines for practical applications, particularly regarding the optimal density and size of mulches for various scenarios.

 

Author Response

Comments to the Reviewer 4,

 

Comments 1: General Comments. The manuscript is well-structured and presents a valuable contribution to soil and water conservation research, particularly in semiarid regions. It addresses the retention and absorption capacity of different organic mulches, exploring the combined effects of mulch type, size, and density under simulated rainfall conditions. The study fills a crucial gap in understanding the combined roles of these variables and offers practical implications for sustainable soil management.

Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for your thoughtful comments. We appreciate your positive assessment of the manuscript’s structure and its contribution to soil and water conservation research, particularly in semiarid regions. We are pleased that the study addresses the retention and absorption capacity of different organic mulches and explores the combined effects of mulch type, size, and density under simulated rainfall conditions. Your feedback highlights the value of this work in advancing our understanding of these variables and their practical implications for sustainable soil management.

 

Comments 2: Abstract: The abstract is well-written and effectively summarizes the objectives, methodology, findings, and implications of the study.

Response: Thank you for your kind feedback. We are glad that you found the abstract well-written and that it effectively summarizes the objectives, methodology, findings, and implications of the study. Your positive comments are greatly appreciated.

 

Comments 3: Introduction: The introduction is comprehensive, with a clear problem statement and a well-defined novelty of the research. It includes relevant and current literature, providing a strong foundation.

Response: Thank you for your positive feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the comprehensive and well-structured introduction.

 

Comments 4: Material and Methods: The methodology section is detailed and well-documented. The experimental design and the descriptions of methods and simulators are thorough, ensuring the reproducibility of the study.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the detailed and well-documented methodology section.

 

Comments 4: Results: The results section is concise yet effectively highlights the key findings. The figures and tables complement the narrative, making the presentation of results clear and impactful.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your positive comments on the clarity and impact of the results section, figures, and tables.

 

Comments 5: Discussion: The discussion, though brief, is relevant and adequately interprets the results in light of previous studies. It effectively justifies the findings and their significance, although further elaboration on broader implications could enhance the section.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your positive remarks on the discussion and will consider further elaborating on the broader implications.

 

Comments 6: Conclusion: The conclusion is clear and summarizes the findings effectively, tying them to practical applications.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your positive comments on the clarity and effectiveness of the conclusion.

 

Suggestions for Improvement

Comments 7: Acknowledgment Section: The acknowledgment section needs to check

Response: Thank you for your comment. The acknowledgment section has been reviewed and the necessary adjustments have been made in the article.

 

Comments 8: Economic Feasibility: Insights on the economic feasibility of adopting high-density mulching in semiarid regions would add practical value and help in contextualizing the findings for implementation.

Response: We have clarified that the mulching material refers to pruning residues from crops, which can contribute to sustainability but do not have a precise cost associated in this context. Thank you for your suggestion. We appreciate your input and will consider including it in future work. It should focus on economic quantification and potential financial return.

 

Comments 9: Language and Grammar: Minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasings should be addressed for improved readability.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and addressed the minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasings to improve readability. The necessary revisions have been made.

 

Comments 10: Conclusions: While the conclusions are strong, they would benefit from including specific thresholds or guidelines for practical applications, particularly regarding the optimal density and size of mulches for various scenarios.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We appreciate your input and will consider including specific thresholds or guidelines for practical applications in future work, adding: Future work should focus on developing comprehensive frameworks, including specific thresholds or guidelines for practical applications, to enhance the effectiveness and reliability of the proposed methodologies.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have modified the manuscript according to the reviewer's suggestions. The article can be accepted in the current version.