Study on the Identification and Classification of Key Influencing Factors of Debris-Flow-Prone Areas in Liaoning Province Based on Self-organizing Clustering and Sensitivity Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review for “Study on identification and classification of key influencing factors of debris flow prone areas in Liaoning province based on self-organizing clustering and sensitivity analysis”
Authors: Wang et al.
The paper focuses on the debris flow in Liaoning province of China and has presented a few novel insights into the identification and classification of key influencing factors of debris flow in the regions. Authors have performed cluster analysis using self-organising maps and non-linear global sensitivity analysis for three classes of debris flow events. In addition, different physiographic factors were examined to identify the most influencing factors of debris flow. I have some concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the input datasets used in this study. Also, the uncertainty in inputs is not accounted for in the analysis.
My comments are:
1. In general, the paper is well written but there are some grammatical mistakes. I suggest the authors to check the paper for such errors and typos.
2. The methods used in this study are robust and widely accepted but authors did not comment on the quality of input datasets. How do you account for the input data uncertainty?
3. The figures are of good quality but some text in the figures is not clearly readable. I suggest authors to recreate such figures.
4. Discussion in the results is weak. It could be further strengthened by comparing the results with literature.
5. Limitations of the study should also be highlighted so that the implementing agencies could be aware of it.
6. Conclusion point #3 is very complex. Please try to simplify it.
7. In Introduction section, some references are missing. For example, line 50 and line 53. Please check.
8. Line 62, please check for grammar.
9. Line 66, it is not advisable to mention specific software. You can rather write GIS.
10. Line 69, the term “home” means different places to different persons. Please refrain from using such terms.
11. Line 71, it should be “these methods” in stead of “this method”
12. Line 181, there is no need to mention “Professor”. A simple citation is sufficient.
Author Response
We have substantially revised our manuscript to consider the comments of the editor and three reviewers. Furthermore, we adopted the English editing service provided by MDPI to help polish our wording. See the Supplementary File for the modification certificate. We sincerely hope the revisions meet your publication standards.
Point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments:
The paper focuses on the debris flow in Liaoning province of China and has presented a few novel insights into the identification and classification of key influencing factors of debris flow in the regions. Authors have performed cluster analysis using self-organizing maps and non-linear global sensitivity analysis for three classes of debris flow events. In addition, different physiographic factors were examined to identify the most influencing factors of debris flow. I have some concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the input datasets used in this study. Also, the uncertainty in inputs is not accounted for in the analysis.
1. In general, the paper is well written but there are some grammatical mistakes. I suggest the authors to check the paper for such errors and typos.
Response:
Thank you for your positive comments. Thank you very much for your suggestion. We put a lot of effort into the revised version of the manuscript. We adopted the English editing service provided by MDPI to help polish our wording. Moreover, we asked all authors to proofread the final version to ensure this manuscript is free of any error. We sincerely hope these revisions you’re your expectations.
2.The methods used in this study are robust and widely accepted but authors did not comment on the quality of input datasets. How do you account for the input data uncertainty?
Response:
Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your valuable suggestions, we have supplemented the uncertainty of the input data in the 3.3 Data source (line 850-852) and 5.2 Limit (line 1780-1783) in the revised version.
3 The figures are of good quality but some text in the figures is not clearly readable. I suggest authors to recreate such figures.
Response:
Thank you very much for this practical suggestion. According to your precious suggestion, we have redrawn all the pictures in the manuscript to improve the clarity of the chart. Please refer to Appendix for the Figure.
4.Discussion in the results is weak. It could be further strengthened by comparing the results with literature.
Response:
Thank you very much for your suggestion. We rewrote much of 5.1 Discussion following your valuable suggestions. We added related references, and undertook a comparison with the existing literature to highlight the value of the study.
5. Limitations of the study should also be highlighted so that the implementing agencies could be aware of it.
Response:
Thank you very much for this practical suggestion. We have added 5.2 Limitation chapters in the manuscript to illustrate the shortcomings of this paper.
6 Conclusion point #3 is very complex. Please try to simplify it.
Response:
Thank you very much for your valuable advice. According to your opinion, we have simplified conclusion point #3.
7 In Introduction section, some references are missing. For example, line 50 and line 53. Please check.
Response:
Many thanks for your kind reminder. We revised the introduction section and corrected some errors.
8.Line 62, please check for grammar.
Response:
Thank you very much for your suggestion. We corrected the grammar problem in line 62, which is now line 262 in the revised version.
9.Line 66, it is not advisable to mention specific software. You can rather write GIS.
Response:
Thank you very much for your kind reminder. We will conduct a full text inspection and modification for this problem.
10.Line 69, the term “home” means different places to different persons. Please refrain from using such terms.
Response:
Thank you very much for your suggestion. We will conduct a full text inspection and modification for this problem.
11.Line 71, it should be “these methods” in stead of “this method”
Response:
Thank you very much for your kind reminder. We have revised this issue, which is now on line 271 of the revised version.
12.Line 181, there is no need to mention “Professor”. A simple citation is sufficient.
Response:
Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have revised this issue, which is now on line 773 of the revised version.
Reviewer 2 Report
Study on identification and classification of key influencing factors of debris flow prone areas in Liaoning province based on self-organizing clustering and sensitivity analysis
First, I checked the similarity scores from Turnitin and found out that it's well below 20%. Therefore, we can move to the reviewing process this is an interesting manuscript. To me this was a translated manuscript. The language usage is not proper. Therefore, I recommend to proofread this manuscript very carefully. This manuscript is very difficult to understand due to its language issue.
What is the research gap? Why do you need to do this research work?
Study area was given without proper map.
“proposed by Professor Li H Y [25] is used for the identification of key” - please look at this sentence. you don't write these things in academic writing. you could easily cite the paper or research work. but why do you have to write “professor?”
Please re-write the manuscript in a proper way and re-submit.
Author Response
We have substantially revised our manuscript to consider the comments of the editor and three reviewers. Furthermore, we adopted the English editing service provided by MDPI to help polish our wording. See the Supplementary File for the modification certificate. We sincerely hope the revisions meet your publication standards.
Point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments:
1.This was a translated manuscript. The language usage is not proper. Therefore, I recommend to proofread this manuscript very carefully. This manuscript is very difficult to understand due to its language issue.
Response:
Thank you for your positive comments. Thank you very much for your suggestion. We put a lot of effort into the revised version of the manuscript. We adopted the English editing service provided by MDPI to help polish our wording. Moreover, we asked all authors to proofread the final version to ensure this manuscript is free of any error.
2.What is the research gap? Why do you need to do this research work?
Response:
Thank you very much for this practical suggestion. In Discussion 5.1 of the revised version (lines 1749-1766), we added a research gap and analyzed the possible reasons for this gap.
In this study, the frequent occurrence of debris flow disasters in Liaoning Province. In order to accurately screen the key physiographic elements affecting the occurrence of debris flow disasters, the statistical data of 538 debris flow sampling points occurring between 1960 and 2020 were used. GIS spatial analysis technology, self-organized mapping clustering, and sensitivity analysis were adopted. Meanwhile, the background environmental characteristics of debris flow occurrence sites in Liaoning province and the correlation between each environmental factor and the occurrence of debris flows were analyzed. On this basis, the key physio-graphic factors were identified, and a mid- and long-term early warning distribution map of debris flow disasters was drawn.
3.Study area was given without proper map.
Response:
Thank you very much for your kind reminder. To accurately display the study area, we add Figure 1.
4.“proposed by Professor Li H Y [25] is used for the identification of key” .you don't write these things in academic writing. you could easily cite the paper or research work.
Response:
Thank you very much for this practical suggestion. We have revised this issue, which is now on line 773 of the revised version.
5.Please re-write the manuscript in a proper way and re-submit.
Response:
Thank you very much for your kind reminder. We put a lot of effort into the revised version of the manuscript. Moreover, we adopted the English editing service provided by MDPI to help polish our wording.
Reviewer 3 Report
Title
The Title reflects the paper’s content accurately.
Abstract
The Abstract determines the paper’s content and objectives in a very manifest and complete fashion.
1. Introduction
The definition employed in L32-L34 is quite close to the classic definition “ Debris flows occur when masses of poorly sorted sediment, agitated and saturated with water, surge down slopes in response to gravitational attraction” [1] which is preferable in terms of caution or a more modern one e.g., “a mixture of loose mud, sand, soil, rock, water, and air flowing down the slope under gravity, in which at least 50% of the solid material must be loose sand or large particles.” [2]. In L36, where climate complexity is referred to in terms of ‘Cao, Y. Q.; Zhang, R. N.; Li, L. H.; Lu, J.; Ning, Y. Study on the relationship between debris flow and precipitation factors at 514 different time scales in Liaoning Province. Disaster Science. 2021,36, 51-56’ it is useful to mention that a combinatorial technique of the Thiessen method and precipitation gauge availability and a correction for elevation variations yields better results in general and does away with the Thiessen method’s necessity for a constant number of gauges [3]. In L52 the flow speed can be measured using ANN as seen in [4]. L97-L100 needs elaboration on why sensitivity analysis is advantageously applicable in the case of Liaoning province.
2. Study area overview
A well-chosen area.
3. Methods and data
Good presentation.
4. Results and Analysis
Very well worked out.
5. Discussion and Conclusions
Well written and in causal connection with previous sections
References
[1] Iverson, R. M., “The Physics of Debris Flows,” Rev. Geophys., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 245–296, 1997.
[2] Shu, A. P., L. Tian, S. Wang, M. Rubinato, F. Zhu, M. Wang, and J. Sun, “Hydrodynamic characteristics of the formation processes for non-homogeneous debris-flow,” Water (Switzerland), vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1–16, 2018, doi: 10.3390/w10040452.
[3] Panagoulia, D., “Assessment of daily catchment precipitation in mountainous regions for climate change interpretation,” Hydrol. Sci. J., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 331–350, 1995, doi: 10.1080/02626669509491419.
[4] Panagoulia, D., G. Tsekouras, and G. Kousiouris, “A multi-stage methodology for selecting input variables in ANN forecasting of river flows,” Glob. NEST, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 49–57, 2017.
Author Response
We have substantially revised our manuscript to consider the comments of the editor and three reviewers. Furthermore, we adopted the English editing service provided by MDPI to help polish our wording. See the Supplementary File for the modification certificate. We sincerely hope the revisions meet your publication standards.
Point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments:
1.The definition employed in L32-L34 is quite close to the classic definition“ Debris flows occur when masses of poorly sorted sediment, agitated and saturated with water, surge down slopes in response to gravitational attraction” [1] which is preferable in terms of caution or a more modern one e.g., “a mixture of loose mud, sand, soil, rock, water, and air flowing down the slope under gravity, in which at least 50% of the solid material must be loose sand or large particles.” [2].
Response:
Thank you for your positive comments. Thank you very much for your kind reminder. According to your suggestion, we have revised the definition of debris flow in lines 32-35 of the revised version to ensure more preciseness.
2.In L36, where climate complexity is referred to in terms of ‘Cao, Y. Q.; Zhang, R. N.; Li, L. H.; Lu, J.; Ning, Y. Study on the relationship between debris flow and precipitation factors at 514 different time scales in Liaoning Province. Disaster Science. 2021,36, 51-56’ it is useful to mention that a combinatorial technique of the Thiessen method and precipitation gauge availability and a correction for elevation variations yields better results in general and does away with the Thiessen method’s necessity for a constant number of gauges [3].
Response:
Thank you very much for this practical suggestion. We carefully studied Reference [3] and quoted it in line 37 of the revised version.
3.In L52 the flow speed can be measured using ANN as seen in [4].
Response:
Thank you very much for your suggestion. We carefully studied Reference [4] and quoted it in line 270 of the revised version.
4. L97-L100 needs elaboration on why sensitivity analysis is advantageously applicable in the case of Liaoning province.
Response:
Thank you very much for your valuable advice. We have detailed in lines 607-613 of the revised version why the sensitivity analysis applies to the Liaoning Province.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
I acknowledge your effort.
However, an important factor is missing in your work.
The novelty; simply why you need to do this research and present to the others should be in the last paragraph of the introduction section. This is the research gap. Then only you can build up your research paper interesting to the others.
Novelty can be discussed in discussion section. However, it has to be started in the introduction.
Author Response
Point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments:
Reviewer:
I acknowledge your effort. However, an important factor is missing in your work. The novelty; simply why you need to do this research and present to the others should be in the last paragraph of the introduction section. This is the research gap. Then only you can build up your research paper interesting to the others. Novelty can be discussed in discussion section. However, it has to be started in the introduction.
Response:
Thank you for your positive comments. Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your professional suggestions, we added the novelty of this study in the introduction. The changes are mainly in lines 93 and 132.
We sincerely hope these revisions you’re your expectations.
