Land Degeneration due to Water Infiltration and Sub-Erosion: A Case Study of Soil Slope Failure at the National Geological Park of Qian-an Mud Forest, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The reviewer still believes that this does not fit into the profile of the journal, but should rather look for a journal on geomorphological or soil science. Otherwise, it should be described in detail in the introduction why sustainability is important here, why is important to maintain a form of soil degradation, and in the paper it should discus: what threatens sustainability. I really miss a Discussion section where 341-346 results are contrasted with earlier explanations. There are still left, and become new topics for correction: Fig 4 instead of geological map a geomorphological or special soil map would applicate, reference should made. Site sampling problem: Is the loess homogeneous up to a depth of 15 m? Is the sample from 3 depths enough? Don't break the layer with paleosols?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The new version of the article is definitely correct and includes all the comments that I recommended in the previous review. The overall impression of the article does not raise my doubts. I have only one suggestion:
1. Moderate English changes required (preferably by a native speaker). The English site of the article should be improved because some sentences are long and over complex.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After the 2nd version I accept the paper in recent form.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General remarks:
1. It does not fit into the journal's profile, but rather fits into a journal of geomorphology or soil science
2. The goal is not clear: causes of soil slope failure, or slope failure management. These are different conclusion. The sample area is cca. 100 km2, can we generalize the results, what is a general deduction.
3. In loess areas, mass movement is very typical and characteristic, this should have been presented in the introduction (eg types with a table) and the result should be linked to this system.
4. Lines 94-108 should use citation, where the data comes from (eg rainfall data coming from the test area?)
5. In the section of presenting the data, those factors should present which will apply in the investigation. They can be used later to determine why and what geomorphological and soil characters are created.
Minor comments:
6. This is probably the potential evapotranspiration (103), how it was calculated. This seems to be an important factor.
7. How many samples were taken, why so (it was enough?), why such depths? These characteristics of the sample area should be explained in more detail in this sample. Are there typical from statistical point of view?
8. He analysed the pieces of the soil sample very carefully. The connection of this geochemical investigation to the main question (the type erosion) should be better explained. The reviewer's opinion: rather far more sample than such an accurate analysis.
9. It would be worth analysing whether this is physical or chemical suffosion. The question doesn't seem complicated.
10. Write down the size (mm - 217)
11. Explanation and application of these questions - in other journals - can be a useful. It work independently, too: “Certain physicochemical properties of the clays were found to influence the different erosion processes fundamentally” (220-) and „Clay dispersibility is a good indicator of the dispersion vulnerability of soil and therefore of the 261 associated risks of soil erosion” (261-)
12. It would be better to give (later) a regional not a point-based evaluation.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presents interesting research and very well prepared. The test procedure is clear and justified. The study data are rightly chosen and sufficient. The authors of the article correctly described the study; it is important that the test procedure can be reproduced by other researchers. Below I have listed comments and suggestions for Authors.
1. The article does not inform about the state of the art. Is this the first article about aspects of land degeneration due to water infiltration and sub-erosion? The state of art should apply not only to forests in China but all over the world. This lack of information should be supplemented by adding paragraph in the introduction.
2. The Figure 3 should presents not only the location of The National Geological Park of Qian-an mud forest but also its area. The range of area of the study should be implemented at Figure 3.
3. The part 2.2. Field Survey and Sampling requires completion. Did the authors of the article study the soil type and properties in places with defined geolocation? Did they use satellite positioning systems to create a map of soil study? Did they use popular GIS solutions for this?
4. The part 3.1.2 Vertical Collapse of Slope it does not represent time dynamics of slope changes. Did the authors of the article specify the time of change presented in Figure 7? Did the authors of the article consider the use of remote sensing tools (eg. terrestrial laser scanning) for differential analysis of slope changes?
5. 3. In my opinion, the section 3. Results and Discussion does not refer to scientific discussion with similar test results. This section just refers the results of research but does not refer them to similar in the same field. It does not indicate what has been assessed better, what has been assessed worse.
