Next Article in Journal
Rural Development Potential in the Bioeconomy in Developed Countries: The Case of Biogas Production in Denmark
Next Article in Special Issue
Differential Hydrological Properties of Forest Litter Layers in Artificial Afforestation of Eroded Areas of Latosol in China
Previous Article in Journal
A Device Designed to Improve Care and Wayfinding Assistance for Elders with Dementia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Dryland Ecological Restoration Research Dynamics: A Bibliometric Analysis Based on Web of Science Data
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Response of Soil Moisture to Long-Duration Rainstorms in Three Forest Stands in Mountainous Areas of North China

Sustainability 2022, 14(17), 11063; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141711063
by Xuhui Tong 1,*, Xinlei Ren 2,3,4 and Yu Chen 2,3,4
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Sustainability 2022, 14(17), 11063; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141711063
Submission received: 15 July 2022 / Revised: 25 August 2022 / Accepted: 26 August 2022 / Published: 5 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Soil and Water Conservation in Mountainous Area)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript deals with changes in soil-water profile patterns against long historical rainstorms in forested areas. The scope is interesting, but the methodology (research approach) is somewhat below the expectation. The authors focused on vegetation in this paper, but the most important factor for the transport of water in a vertical direction would be soil texture and there should be a mention of analytical approaches using Richard’s equation (Darcy’s law) to support the author's claim. Also, I think that the sentences and graphs should be refined as a whole to make the thesis easier for readers to understand. For example, repeating species in italic font would be nice if it is changed to a symbol.

1.      P2, L47: missing period before ‘Soil moisture’?

2.      P4, Table 1.: I guess there is typo ‘Ukuran plot sam-pel’->‘Ukuran plot sample’

3.      P 4, L133-136: It will be better to add units (is it all [length]?) to account for equation (1)

4.      P5,Figure 2 (and 3): Please indicate a,b, and c in the figure.

5.      P5,L165-166: Please state how to determine the “average lag time” (e.g., at which depth, is it depth-averaged? It’s unclear)

6.      P5,L186 (and Table 2): Match the unit of the coefficient of variation.

7.      P5,L190: Are there other references or studies that support the fact that coniferous species can retain soil moisture more effectively?

8.      P5, L192 (Figure 2 and Table 2), P6, L206: why Quercus variabilis have very low water content and delayed respose at 120-160cm not like the other two? Please explain with evidence (e.g. layers in soil profile. Location of water table, …)

9.      P7, Figure 4: It would look better if the y-axis (depth) is reversed.

10.       P7, Figure 4a: is this transport of water below 40cm (positive gradient) mean evapotranspiration? (from deep shallow soil), based on the explanation in P4, L148-150? or capillary? Root-water uptake? It’s confusing to me that upward flux is present even in rainfall.

11.  P7, L236: Please define “polymeric and divergence zero-flux plane”.

12.  P8, Figure 5: please correct the font (italic) for the Platycla-dus orientalis.

 

13.  P9, L290: I guess ‘Pinus’ got in the wrong place before Quercus variabilis.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Although some comments are not answered in this version, the authors made lots of efforts to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our article again, your last suggestion has been very helpful for our research and article. Thank you again for your endorsement of our article, which we will do more in-depth later.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your response and revisions. The new manuscript have addressed correctly many of my comments. This is a much better manuscript than before.  However, I still have some minor comments, as below.

L280-282: In a arid and semi-arid region, I think the root distribution depth is too shallow. Please check the data and compare it with other studies, including the following results. It also needs to be demonstrated in combination with a large number of references.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing our article again. The depth of the root systems of the three plants in the article is the result of our field investigation, and we can guarantee the authenticity of these data. In addition, the occurrence of preferential flow near the root system after rainfall has been confirmed in other relevant literature. The following are the relevant documents we have referenced and have been added to the article.

 

Li S L, Liang W L. Spatial-temporal soil water dynamics beneath a tree monitored by tensiometer-time domain reflectometry probes[J]. Water, 2019, 11(8): 1662.

Lou S, Liu M X, Yi J, Zhang H L, Li X F, Yang Y, Wang Q Y, Huang J W. Influence of vegetation coverage and topographic position on soil hydrological function in the hillslope of the three gorges area. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019, 39(13): 4844-4854.  

Back to TopTop