Study on the Effect and Enhancement of Near-Natural Integrated Plant Positioning Configuration in the Hilly Gully Region, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper which is well-written and structured throughout. It is also quite a long paper. The methodology and content seem to be sound and the paper is well detailed. The text is quite 'dense' and to some extent would benefit from a few introductory/summary sentences and paragraphs at various stages to try to tease out the essence of each section to help the reader grasp some of the content - especially given the detail of the manuscript. To this end I would like to have seen a detailed box diagram that mapped out visually the purpose of the research, the components etc... together with one that maps out the methods used to undertake the research at each stage. This would help to clarify the complexity of the research undertaken in this paper. I would also like to have seen some more research illustrations re: data collection etc. rather than just a written account and the outcomes of the analysis. A very minor edit would be to change the colour of the Yellow River on the map - which clashes with the terrain height - unless it is indicative of the height of the terrain at that point - in which case add a line etc. Overall a very good paper and it is possible to grasp the complexity of the research/understanding required as a basis to provide the means to understand the impacts of management, and for improving the management in the future - it could - just do with a little additional clarification.

Author Response

Cover Letter

 

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely thank the editor and all reviewers for their valuable feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript. Firstly, thank you for affirming our research institute. Your encouragement serves as the driving force behind our continuous progress. In response to your inquiries about this article, we have made necessary revisions.The reviewer comments are laid out below in italicized font and specific concerns have been numbered. Our response is given in normal font and changes/additions to the manuscript are given in the red text.

 

Question 1:I would like to have seen a detailed box diagram that mapped out visually the purpose of the research, the components etc... together with one that maps out the methods used to undertake the research at each stage. This would help to clarify the complexity of the research undertaken in this paper. 

 

 Answer：We have included a flowchart in the article to clearly present the ideas and context(Fig.6).

 

Question 2:I would also like to have seen some more research illustrations re: data collection etc. rather than just a written account and the outcomes of the analysis. 

 

Answer：We have included some sample graphs and analysis graphs in the article.(Fig.2/Fig.3/Fig.4/Fig.5)

 

Question 3:A very minor edit would be to change the colour of the Yellow River on the map - which clashes with the terrain height - unless it is indicative of the height of the terrain at that point - in which case add a line etc.

 

Answer：To effectively differentiate between the meanings represented by various colors, we modified Figure 1 by changing the color of the Yellow River basin from yellow to black.

 

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes marked in red in revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope the correction will meet with approval. Additionally, we will persist in conducting additional research on wind erosion, water quality, and carbon sequestration in our forthcoming projects. We appreciate your valuable advice and guidance.Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Colleagues!

I have read your practical work with interest.

Please first define the optimization criteria in the Introduction. What, from your point of view, is the optimal structure of a protective planting (minimization of water erosion and stability with a minimum density of trees and costs for their planting, maybe something else)? I note that you studied the protective properties only during the period of maximum rainfall. What about wind erosion in winter and spring? Would a 5*5m2 structure also be optimal for wind erosion? Or is wind erosion less important? What about the water quality if you retain runoff and the water dissolving pyrite-arsenic sandstone becomes enriched in arsenic? What about significant carbon sequestration by the forest instead of little by the grass? These criteria are not included (maybe later they will be included) in the concept of optimization? All this must be determined in the Introduction when setting the goals and objectives of the study.

Further in “Materials and Methods”, please provide a list of the species composition of the dominant trees, shrubs and grasses of your plantings, as well as the age (when they were planted). Further, in Equations ##. 1-23, please give the dimensions, if any, or indicate “dimensionless”. There are mistakes there. For example, in Equation #. 5 - W2 should be instead of W0 . In equation #. 7, W3 must be defined, etc. ThGround diameter (line 134) is not a good term, it is better to change it, for example, “near the surface”. I also recommend that you carefully read the text, formulas and symbols for them again, since there are typos. For the future, my wish is to study the year-round functioning of the protective planting, including the winter-spring period with increased wind erosion, and also to investigate the problems of possible water contamination with arsenic. It seems to me that the expansion of forest strips in the upper and lower elements of the relief with an optimal planting density of 5 * 5 m2 should solve these problems and increase the carbon sequestration potential of the territory.

April 24. 2024.

Best wishes, Your Reviewer

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is understandable, but there are errors and typos, minimal editing is needed.

Author Response

Cover Letter

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely thank the editor and all reviewers for their valuable feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript. Firstly, thank you for affirming our research institute. Your encouragement serves as the driving force behind our continuous progress. In response to your inquiries about this article, we have made necessary revisions.The reviewer comments are laid out below in italicized font and specific concerns have been numbered. Our response is given in normal font and changes/additions to the manuscript are given in the red text.

 

Question 1:Please first define the optimization criteria in the Introduction. What, from your point of view, is the optimal structure of a protective planting (minimization of water erosion and stability with a minimum density of trees and costs for their planting, maybe something else)?

 

 Answer：In the fourth paragraph of the introduction, we have included a definition for the optimal allocation model. This model aims to maximize reductions in gravel exposure while promoting stand growth. Additionally, it enhances stability in plant community structure, increases soil saturated water conductivity, and improves litter water retention.

 

Question 2:I note that you studied the protective properties only during the period of maximum rainfall. What about wind erosion in winter and spring? Would a 5*5m2 structure also be optimal for wind erosion? Or is wind erosion less important?

 

Answer：In the study area, hydraulic erosion is identified as the primary factor causing soil erosion and sand deposition, rather than wind erosion. Therefore, this paper focuses on investigating hydraulic erosion, which is explained in the first paragraph of the introduction.

 

Question 3:What about the water quality if you retain runoff and the water dissolving pyrite-arsenic sandstone becomes enriched in arsenic? What about significant carbon sequestration by the forest instead of little by the grass? These criteria are not included (maybe later they will be included) in the concept of optimization? All this must be determined in the Introduction when setting the goals and objectives of the study.

 

Answer：This study did not focus on water quality and carbon sinks, and relevant studies will continue to be carried out in the follow-up research process, as explained in the third paragraph of the introduction. Additionally, I would like to express my gratitude to the reviewers for their valuable feedback, which has provided me with new ideas and goals for future work.

 

Question 4:Further in “Materials and Methods”, please provide a list of the species composition of the dominant trees, shrubs and grasses of your plantings, as well as the age (when they were planted).

 

Answer：For this part, I have added the relevant explanation below Table 1.

 

Question 5:Further, in Equations ##. 1-23, please give the dimensions, if any, or indicate “dimensionless”. There are mistakes there. For example, in Equation #. 5 - W2 should be instead of W0 . In equation #. 7, W3 must be defined, etc.

 

Answer：I have modified and verified all the formulas in the article, ensuring consistent dimensions and clear definitions for each variable.

 

Question 6:Th Ground diameter (line 134) is not a good term, it is better to change it, for example, “near the surface”. I also recommend that you carefully read the text, formulas and symbols for them again, since there are typos.

 

Answer：We have already made changes to this problem.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes marked in red in revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope the correction will meet with approval. Additionally, we will continue to conduct further research on wind erosion, water quality, and carbon sequestration in our future work. We appreciate your advice and guidance.Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf