Experimental Study on the Effect of Soil Reinforcement and Slip Resistance on Shallow Slopes by Herbaceous Plant Root System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is very impressive on both its writing format and technical contents. The anti-shear test of a root-soil composite is very interesting, although the test results have not been fully discussed. The analytical results are properly supported by its modeling techniques and simulation tools, e.g., the 2D slope model of multi-slip-surface landslide using the Geo-Slope software for slope stability analysis. The numerical models, also correctly considered the realistic conditions of various geological and mechanical parameters. The slope failure mechanism based on the set of different rooting rate and global sliding analysis for geometry and boundary effect results look good to this reviewer. Therefore, I do not have adverse comments, and personally think this paper can provide insights about the landslide displacement prediction. Overall, the authors have shown great advances in this tough topic, so I recommend the publication of this manuscript if the authors can address my concerns as detailed below. Apart from the displacement results, stability analysis of the plant rooting soil slope should also be discussed. At last, the authors are reminded that all slope stability assessment should not be only limited to the deterministic approach. In the last decade, the probabilistic and uncertainty approaches which can integrate the deterministic parameters with probability of failure prediction have seen fast development. For example, some recent publications on this topic can be found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.02.027; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.103286; https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2020-0252; https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0002101 The authors should consider this topic in their discussions for possible future study. A discussion section is required to further highlight the pros and cons of the current study. Figure 10 needs to be improved significantly. Chinese characters should be replaced with English, also note that proper notes of different schemes should be added into the plots. Different line style should be used to indicate the variation curves. Conclusions should be rephrased using bulletin points.

Literature review is not comprehensive, too many Chinese papers being cited. This is an international journal, and those international paper of high visuability should be considered the first place to mention.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

REVIEW REPORT

 The paper discusses the effect of soil reinforcement and slip protection on shallow slopes by herbaceous plant root system (Setaria viridis) in the Haizhou mining area. The study is experimental-analytical-numerical in nature, and related to the practical application in the field of geoengineering.

The topic and tests performed by the Authors, as well as analysis of results, are potentially interesting. The main objection concerns the lack of discussion with scientific studies in the field, and the current background of the issue. For this reason, the manuscript requires major modifications before it can be accepted for publication. I offer the following general comments (see below) and specific comments (see in the attached file) to improve this paper.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

(1)     WHOLE MANUSCRIPT:

–        Inappropriate references to literature in the text. For example, it should be in the text: “Based on the mechanical equilibrium equation, Wu et al. [4] established (...)” instead of “Based on the mechanical equilibrium equation, Wu[4] established (...)”;

–        Lack of standardization of formatting: sometimes it is "in/from Fig. X" and other times it is "in/from Figure X".

–        Inappropriate description of the Figures with more than one photograph or graph. You should write the main title at first (a short explanatory title), then the description of the subpoints (a) …; (b) …., etc. In addition, the photographs or graphs must be described in the drawing as a), b) etc.

(2)     INTRODUCTION:

–        The Introduction must be completed with more references, especially international references.

(3)     SOIL AND TESTS DESCRIPTION:

–        Lack of the information about the Standards according to which the research was carried out.

(4)     DISCUSSION:

–        Lack of the true discussion of the results. The discussion is not with oneself, but in relation to the results of other researchers. There are many publications related to this topic, including the latest ones, e.g.:

–        https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103328

–        https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293661

–        https://doi.org/10.3390/f13111925

–        https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05268-0

–        https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17828-2

–        https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.11.6

–         https://doi.org/10.3390/app132312632

(5)     REFERENCES:

–        The References should be formatted according to publishing guidelines.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. There are too many language issues with the manuscript

2. The structure of the manuscript is unreasonable

3. The experimental design in front of the manuscript is not closely related to GEO-SLOPE software simulation (unclear soil and slag structure).

4. Is the gradient setting of soil moisture content (9% -13%) reasonable, and what situations can these settings represent?

1. There are too many language issues with the manuscript

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All previous comments have been fully addressed.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Further comments are included in the attached file.

(SIGMA - s)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Inappropriate technical vocabulary.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been greatly improved through the author's efforts, but there are still some problems. The main problems are as follows

1. The language and format of the manuscript should be revised according to submission requirements.

2. There is a problem with Figure 1a. It is recommended to delete it.

3. It is recommended that authors should carefully revise the manuscript and organize the structure of the manuscript, such as pages 71-76. This is not appropriate.

4. There are still a lot of mistakes in the manuscript, too many to point out.

The manuscript has been greatly improved through the author's efforts, but there are still some problems. The main problems are as follows

1. The language and format of the manuscript should be revised according to submission requirements.

2. There is a problem with Figure 1a. It is recommended to delete it.

3. It is recommended that authors should carefully revise the manuscript and organize the structure of the manuscript, such as pages 71-76. This is not appropriate.

4. There are still a lot of mistakes in the manuscript, too many to point out.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the Authors for taking into account my comments and suggestions. I have no further significant comments. Now, the manuscript may be published at present form after taking into account the following comments:

Title of the Figure 4:
1) Why "positive pressures"? In direct shear tests, these stresses are called "normal stresses".
2) Please insert the appropriate Greek symbol instead of "SIGMA" - This cannot be done in review mode on a PDF file and online.

The drawing (b) in Figure 5:
3) You are not consistent. The title of the horizontal axis in drawing (b) should be the same as in drawing (a):
Content of root in composite (%)

The drawing (b) in Figure 6:
4) The title of the vertical axis in drawing (b) should be as follows:
Tensile strength (MPa)

Author Response

please check the attached file, thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The author has revised the questions very well and I have no problem with it.

Author Response

Thanks for your effort in my manuscript.