Effects of Subsurface Pipe Drainage Spacing on Soil Salinity Movement in Jiangsu Coastal Reclamation Area
, Hiba Shaghaleh 4 and Yousef Alhaj Hamoud 5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Title: Effects of subsurface pipe drainage treatments on soil salinity movement in Jiangsu coastal reclamation area
1. On title: The word “treatments” should be replaced with “spacing”.
2. On abstract: Line 17-20: This sentence is more like stating the methodology. The word “investigated” is not proper, this should be replaced by “applied”.
3. Lines 28-30: Abstract is usually written in simple past tense. Please rewrite this sentence.
4. Lines 80-82: Cite the source of this sentence.
5. Lines 98-99: Cite the source/reference of these climate data. 14-15℃ is a range, not an average. Please select whether its 14 or 15 or 14.5 degrees Celsius.
6. Line 101: Cite the source/reference of 1200 mm/year evaporation rate.
7. Lines 107-109: Put citation on the sentence describing the soil salinity level.
8. Tables 1 and 2: Are these data produced in this study or were sourced from previous studies? Please describe it in Lines 112-113.
9. The content of Section 2.3 is not statistical analyses. Please revise.
10. Be consistent of using of units in the entire manuscript, for example g/kg or ‰?
11. Lines 182-191: Cite the references/sources of total salt content values (‰) mentioned in these sentences.
12. The paper is comparing treatments but did not provide statistical analysis of results. I suggest including statistical analysis of results in the results and discussion sections.
13. On conclusions: Simplify or summarize the key findings by not going into details. These statements were already mentioned in results and discussions. Include the optimized layout pattern of subsurface drainage in the conclusion.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for giving us an opportunity to revise this paper. We are grateful for your detailed comments and suggestions. We believed that your inputs have greatly improved our manuscript. We have considered these comments carefully and made revisions. Our point-by-point responses to the comments are marked in red.
Yours sincerely,
Bo Bi
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript (MS) titled "Effects of subsurface pipe drainage treatments on soil salinity movement in Jiangsu coastal reclamation area" focused on the remediation of soil salinity via subsurface pipe drainage activity. The salinity of the planet's soils is a significant hindrance to agricultural production. Thus, the study highlighted a crucial global issue, and the results are encouraging for reducing soil salinity. However, I have few concerns, which are listed below:
1. Check the MS for grammatical and typographical errors.
2.For the soil parameters listed in Table 1, the authors did not explain the methodology used; if the data are derived from other studies, please cite the source.
3. The discussion part on "The effect of subsurface drainage pipe on yield of Sesbania crop" should be expanded.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for giving us an opportunity to revise this paper. We are grateful for your detailed comments and suggestions. We believed that your inputs have greatly improved our manuscript. We have considered these comments carefully and made revisions. Our point-by-point responses to the comments are marked in red.
Yours sincerely,
Bo Bi
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript ID sustainability-2582677 entitled “Effects of subsurface pipe drainage treatments on soil salinity movement in Jiangsu coastal reclamation area”.
This manuscript evaluated 12 treatments of subsurface drainage systems and three observation wells at varying distances from the drainage outlet on soil salinity and Sesbania crop yield.
Reducing soil salinization particularly in arid regions is important issue. So, I think this study could be valuable and published after major revision.
However, I have some suggestion and observations:
In the introduction: I think that the use of artificial drainage to reduce soil salinity has been dealt with superficially and needs more details and previous research in more detail.
Line 45 - 46: Please revise this sentence, not in the same context of the previous one (Line 43-44). Need to paraphrase.
In the Material and methods, it difficult to follow, several information repeated many, salinity measurements not consistent by which it measured in some point in some treatments and in others not (Line 155-156, 205-206).
Line 107 - 110: soil salinity levels are 0.5 g/kg and 23 g/kg, but in the table 1 the soil salinity range is different. Please revise this.
In Table 1 there is an important difference in the soil characteristics between the sample. Is in the same field and depth? I suggest to identify the number of samples.
The treatments # 10, 11, and 12 are not clear in the Material and methods or Figure 2. Since no observation well and drainage pipe outlet how the three treatments have been distinguished.
Section 2.2 in Material and methods: many information has been re-mentioned in different sub-section (2.2.1 – 2.2.2). I suggest to re-write this section (2.2) to be more accurate.
Line 197 and 180: Please superscript th.
In the material and methods section more details are required about planting of Sesbania; distance, rows # of plants per plot as this study determined the yield. Also, the yield data should be subjected to statistical analysis.
Line 205 – 208: I suggest to move these sentences to material and methods.
Line 290 – 296: I suggest to move the results of monthly precipitation to result section.
The evaluation of the results and comparison of your study with previously reported studies should be discussed in discussion section, however, this is missing. Further interpretation and deep discussion are important to improve this section.
I think the conclusion part is too long, need to shortened.
Nothing
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for giving us an opportunity to revise this paper. We are grateful for your detailed comments and suggestions. We believed that your inputs have greatly improved our manuscript. We have considered these comments carefully and made revisions. Our point-by-point responses to the comments are marked in red.
Yours sincerely,
Bo Bi
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
General Comments
The authors have done good work and presented very well. It is suggested to mention the total study area. Similarly, nothing is mentioned about the economic analysis. How much did the project cost? In the long term, how it will be beneficial for the community living in the surrounding? For more clarification and research replication, an economical assessment of this approach is needed that could help the community to understand the problem and its viable solution in such types of soils. The article might be accepted for publication after economic analysis. Some minor/specific comments are as follows:
Specific Comments
Line 100: What do the authors mean by the dry season? It will be better to mention how long the dry season pertains in this region. It will be good to mention the months of the dry season. Furthermore, less rainfall and stronger evaporation are qualitative terms. It is suggested to include numerical values of rainfall and evaporation both during dry and wet seasons, if available.
Line 101-102: Again, qualitative terms are used for the terrain in this region is low, and there is a high groundwater level. Low with respect to what? Average groundwater depth?
Line 108-109: Better to mention with a reference about what is generally a high soil salinity level to be classified as heavy salt soils or even extremely heavy salt soils. They are mentioned later but should have been included for the readers' convenience.
Line 118-129: Are there any guidelines with references for applying different treatments or these are the proposed framework by the authors? There are different types of sensors that can collect soil moisture and soil salinity. Why FJA-10 sensor is used? Can we use other sensors for the same purpose?
Figure 2: Where is T7 in the figure? T9 is twice in zone c.
Line 179-180: May 30th to October 30th of which year? Better to mention the year.
Line 184: What is the symbol after percentage (%) 3‰? It should be 3%. Same comment is applicable to the successive text.
Line 200: “with the calculation formula as follows” can simply be replaced with “was calculated using the following equation”.
Line 214 and Line 222: Figure 3 referred to here is possibly Figure 4.
Figure 4: It will be better to show the unit of the y-axis (ordinate) values, like soil salinity (g/kg).
Line 232: Figure 4 might be Figure 5.
Figure 7: crop yield (kg) for how much area? From the readers' viewpoint, the bar colors could be changed to different patterns because in black and white print the bar color difference might be difficult.
Figure 9: Not referred to in the text.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for giving us an opportunity to revise this paper. We are grateful for your detailed comments and suggestions. We believed that your inputs have greatly improved our manuscript. We have considered these comments carefully and made revisions. Our point-by-point responses to the comments are marked in red.
Yours sincerely,
Bo Bi
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have been made all requested suggestation. I think the manuscript now have been improved.
