Evaluation of Spatial-Temporal Variation of Soil Loss and Best Conservation Measures in an East Africa Catchment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors designed the article to study the “Evaluation of Spatial-temporal Variation of Soil Loss and Best Conservation Measures in an East Africa Catchment”. In this paper, authors our soil conservation management scenarios involving base-line, terracing, contouring, and grassed waterway scenarios are selected for soil loss evaluation for Tekeze watershed. but there are some discrepancies in the article which needs to be improved.
Overall the article is good for early carrier researchers for watershed management under specific conditions of Ethopia. However if the authors can relate DEM in a little more detail in methodology section (may be a map showing the average slope of all 34 sub-basins).
As there are three major soil types are present in the watershed, it would be better to calculate the recharge values form 34 sub-basins. Also any idea of prolonged groundwater storage in the aquifer? low and high flow velocity? these all are the factors which also affects the Management practices and erosion control.
if possible economic analysis could enhance the worth. cost for all 4 practices.
Recommendation section is missing.
Additional comments:
The comments no. 3 and 4 could be discussed in recommendation section that in further study, recharge and flow velocity of all 34 sub basins can also be incorporated.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to extend our sincere gratitude for your valuable comments and suggestions, which have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of the manuscript. Your insights have proven to be invaluable in the development of the research work.
Please find attached a Word file containing our response to your feedback. We are open to any further comments or suggestions that you may have.
Thank you once again for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.
Best regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article has a clear idea and can propose comparative research plans for soil conservation measures based on the actual situation in the research area. The research method is feasible, and the topic has certain research value.But there are still some additions or modifications needed: (1) The keywords cannot reflect the key points of the paper, and it is recommended to make additional modifications; (2) Figures 8, 9, 10, and 11 should be clearly labeled with their vertical and horizontal coordinates; (3) The scenarios of various soil erosion control measures are segmented, and how they are used in the current situation of the watershed needs to be supplemented; (4) The innovation points of the paper are not clear enough and need to be further refined.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to extend our sincere gratitude for your valuable comments and suggestions, which have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of the manuscript. Your insights have proven to be invaluable in the development of the research work.
Please find attached a Word file containing our response to your feedback. We are open to any further comments or suggestions that you may have.
Thank you once again for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.
Best regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have done some interesting work using a standard SWAT model and a set of input parameters. Perhaps, in the regional aspect, this study has scientific and applied value. It is also necessary to be quite critical when evaluating the model and the results obtained. Since the accuracy of sediment balance estimation of this model is very low. The most interesting in the article is the section devoted to scenarios of erosion regulation. It seems to me that in each scenario it was necessary to provide for the spatial aspect of the change in the intensity of erosion along the slopes of the sub-basins. What is important is not the type of erosion protection tools used, but in what places on the slope and in what orientation they are offered.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to extend our sincere gratitude for your valuable comments and suggestions, which have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of the manuscript. Your insights have proven to be invaluable in the development of the research work.
Please find attached a Word file containing our response to your feedback. We are open to any further comments or suggestions that you may have.
Thank you once again for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.
Best regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This study evaluates the spatio-temporal variation of soil erosion using popular SWAT model and identifies the best SC practice for Tekeze watershed located in Northern part of Ethiopi.. The study reveals that terracing is the most effective approach for soil and water conservation in the Tekeze watershed. However, there are some questions that need to be clarified and improved.
1. All the resolution of the figure should be improved.
2. In Figure 1c, what are the tekeze_stations refer to? Hydrological station or meteorological station?
3. The order of sections 2.2 to 2.4 should be adjusted. 2.4 Model methodology should be introduced first, followed by the data required for the model
4. In section 2.2, what’s the observed period of hydrological data?
5. In section 2.4, the author should briefly describe the soil sediment equation in SWAT model, which could read and cited the following reference.
Shi, W. H*., Chen, T.T., Yang, J. W., Lou, Q.F., Liu M. 2022. An improved MUSLE model incorporating the estimated runoff and peak discharge for sediment yield prediction at a watershed scale on the Chinese Loess Plateau. Journal of Hydrology, 614 (2022), 128598.
Gwapedza, D., Nyamela, N., Hughes, D.A., Slaughter, A.R., Mantel, S.K., van der Waal, B., 2021. Prediction of sediment yield of the Inxu River catchment (South Africa) using the MUSLE. Int. Soil Water Conse. 9 (1), 37–48. ttps://doi.org/10.10 16/j.iswcr.2020.10.003.
6. The title of Section 2.5 is inappropriate, which could change as “Criteria for model evaluation”
7. What’s the time scale of the calibration and validation of model?
8. In Section 3.4, how to implement these three measures of grassed waterways, terracing, and contour in the SWAT model? Whether they apply to all land use or only to some areas?
9. Finally, the author should give us a detailed discussion about three measures and terracing is the most effective approach for soil and water conservation in the Tekeze watershed
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to extend our sincere gratitude for your valuable comments and suggestions, which have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of the manuscript. Your insights have proven to be invaluable in the development of the research work.
Please find attached a Word file containing our response to your feedback. We are open to any further comments or suggestions that you may have.
Thank you once again for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.
Best regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
No
