Analysis of Water Migration and Spoil Slope Stability under the Coupled Effects of Rainfall and Root Reinforcement Based on the Unsaturated Soil Theory
, Zhiwei Zhang 1,2,3, Qunou Jiang 1,2,3, Lanhua Liu 4, Caisong He 4 and Yang Zhou 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is very well written with clear statement of research objectives and adoption of appropriate materials and methods. The conclusion of the study is well supported by the results. The findings of study will of use to researchers as well as slope stabilization practitioners. I wish the authors all the best.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Plz correct based on Showed comments in the manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of the manuscript “Analysis of water migration and spoil slope stability under the coupled effects of rainfall and root reinforcement”, (manuscript ID: forests-2864743)
The authors analyzed abandoned dreg sites in West Sichuan Province, China, focusing on the combined impact of rainfall and root reinforcement on slope stability across various stages of restoration using numerical methods and confirmed through field measurements and tests. The effects of slope angle, rainfall characteristics, and vegetation attributes on the safety factor of vegetated slopes were assessed.
In my opinion, the manuscript is quite well structured, and does not present any particular issues.
However, analyzing only one slope raises questions about the general validity of the findings to other scenarios. In my opinion, it should be introduced how the conclusions drawn from this single case can be extrapolated to broader contexts. In other words, to what extent do the conclusions drawn from this case study apply to other cases?
Overall, I believe that in its current form, the manuscript requires enhancement in this regard to increase its scientific significance.
In the following, some specific comments are:
- Section 2.3.2: more details on rainfall simulation (using COSMOL) are needed. Furthermore, authors investigated the effects of just a single rainfall event. Same conclusions could be gained considering similar rainfall events? Please, discuss these aspects.
- Lines 296-298: Please, provide more information on how the Safety Factor is determined. These lines are too much synthetic and it is not clear the meaning.
- Each acronym mentioned in the text must be fully explained the first time it appears in the text.
- In order to scientifically enhance the study, the most recent studies on soil water content triggering conditions, rainfall-induced instability and the root reinforcement should be cited. In this regard, I feel that these studies https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Saurabh-Kumar-244/publication/369734805_Experimental_and_Numerical_Analysis_of_Unsaturated_Soil_Slope_Stability_with_Rainfall_and_Jute_Fibre_Reinforcement_Condition/links/64299ce8315dfb4ccec85952/Experimental-and-Numerical-Analysis-of-Unsaturated-Soil-Slope-Stability-with-Rainfall-and-Jute-Fibre-Reinforcement-Condition.pdf; https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-279-2023, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-023-01330-3, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106853, could be cited.
Due to these reasons, I feel that the manuscript should be improved before publication and major revisions are needed.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required. Check for typos.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGENERAL COMMENTS
The manuscript reports the results of research carried out by the authors in Kangding (Sichuan Province, China) on the reinforcement caused by roots as an effective slope protection measure. Indeed, roots and soil suction produce water absorption whose effects are little known in complex environments. This is a very topical issue that falls within the scope of the “forests” journal.
The authors carried out this study based on the seepage-stress theory of unsaturated soils and simulated the effect of rainfall on water migration and the stability of spoil, overburden, and vegetated slopes. The simulation results were verified by field measurements and pore water pressure tests, and the influences of slope angle, rainfall parameters, and vegetation cover thickness on slope stability were taken into account. Thus, the authors obtained several results and conclusions that are of interest and worthy of publication. The document is suitably documented.
However, there are several questions that should be clarified first in order to correct mistakes and improve the comprehension of this study. Regarding linguistic expression, I have indicated several grammatical issues and explanatory improvements that must be addressed, but these are by no means exhaustive. Nevertheless, I advise that the manuscript should be revised in this regard with the help of a native English speaker, if possible.
MAIN CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS
The monitoring carried out could be appropriate, although I find the description of some routine methods rather vague.
1)L117. The authors state “…The rock is intensely weathered.” The, authors should be more rigorous and indicate the types of rocks on which this research is based.
This is because, in geotechnical studies, a distinction is usually made between rocks (competent geological material because is compact and brittle, and tends to form joints and faults) and soil (or incompetent geological material because it is weak and plastic, and tend to fold and develop cleavage). Additionally, how do the authors distinguish the latter from the other “intensely weathered” material that perhaps is a soil in the pedogenic sense?
2)Ls126-127. This is confusing because the authors indicate in the L125 five soil types (a,…e), but here only are indicated three. The same for L127-128. Please, revise.
3)L135. Please, explain the methods used to obtain the particle size distribution curves: densitometry, sieving with series of sieves, Robinson pipette, etc.?
4)Ls136-137. I believe that it is better write: “soil moisture was determined by gravimetric method (weight difference between the wet sample and after oven drying)”. Please, improve.
5)Ls141-143. These lines do not sufficiently explain how the authors obtained these variables. For instance, was soil moisture determined in situ? Specify the methods and sensors used, circumstances of the monitoring followed, etc. Please, improve.
6)L144. This isolated phrase makes no sense. Please, revise.
7)Ls277-279. The experimental setup of Figure 4 has no real measurements: it appears as a conceptual theoretical sketch, disconnected from reality. Please, improve.
Is this a natural or artificial trench? If it is artificial, how was it formed with the engineering spoil, overburden soil and root-soil composite materials? Anyway, does the selected site (L326: abandoned dreg site) meets the required isotropy conditions (Ls 226-227)? etc.
The reader needs real information of this device.
8)Ls305-309. The authors should better explain these lines, including new labels if necessary, and/or expanding with diagrams to support these reasoning. As it is, the reader does not understand it well.
9)Figure 6. I suggest improving these sketches to give better support to the text. Perhaps the authors could expand it, adding explicative labels.
10)Section 4. Discussion. The authors should be more explicit: providing telegraphic information it is not enough. In this Section 4 the authors must show the value of their work with continuous references to previously prepared figures and tables.
For instance, I notice that they use coefficients included in the equations: indicate what those equations are. They claim to observe behaviors through the tracing of the curves, without saying what those graphs are. It states that “the cutting zone and the plastic zone are larger in” but they do not give values, etc.
Please, facilitate the reading of your findings.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
I suggest writing all the variables of the equations with the same font size. Please, revise throughout the text.
TITLE
Ok.
ABSTRACT
Ok.
1.INTRODUCTION
Ls50-51: This sentence is very similar to that of L52-53. Could the authors unify them?
2.MATERIALS AND METHODS
L156. The indicated Standard is a Standard for geotechnical testing method. The authors should include this reference in the final list of References, or an equivalent of the most used (in English version).
L209.Typing mistake: please change “soultion” by “solution”
3.RESULTS
L342. Please, revise if this word “dredge” is correct or if it is a typing mistake of the word “dreg”.
L356. Please, revise if the units of the rainfall intensity are correct. Usually are given in mm/hour but could be given in the MKS system.
Ls358-359. I suggest writing these two equations not encrusted in the text, but separate from the body of the text and explaining the variables used in a similar way to equation 8.
L364. This section contains expressions in which I believe product signs are missing. Please, revise.
4.DISCUSSION
Please, see point 10 above (Main Concerns).
5.CONCLUSIONS
Ok.
REFERENCES
Ok.
FIGURES AND FIGURE CAPTIONS
Figure 1: Red labels included in photographs are illegible. I advise writing the labels (g) and (h) included in the graphs to avoid confusion. Please, improve.
Figure 4. This experimental setup does not include real dimensions: its appears as a conceptual theoretical model, disconnected from reality.
Is this a natural or artificial trench? If it is artificial, how was it formed with the engineering spoil, overburden soil and root-soil composite materials? Does the selected site (L326: abandoned dreg site) meets the required homogeneity and isotropy conditions? etc. The reader needs real information of this device.
Figure 5. Please, write the letters in this figure larger to make it easier to read.
Figure 6. I suggest improving these sketches to give better support to the text.
Figure 13. Do the numbers 1, 2 and 3 correspond to any of the positions in the previous figures? If so, please indicate them.
TABLES
Table 1: Columns Density, Elastic m., Cohesion c, Internal f. and Saturated p., are confusing because each case appears on the last line as a quotient. I advise writing in brackets the units (R (kg.m-3), c (kPa), j (º), etc.).
How was determined the saturated permeability coefficient? Please, indicated this method in the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear editor,
Revised version tried to be corrected. so there is no comment.
Wishes
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
