Morphometric Evaluation and Its Incidence in the Mass Movements Present in the Chicamocha Canyon, Colombia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The following comments and suggestions in the paper should guide the authors to revise the paper.

1. The manuscript needs the following changes to reach the standard of publication: (1) improve the language, (2) improve figures, (3)improve the expression of innovation and research significance.

2. The language in this manuscript needs major revisions, especially,

1) please check the grammar errors, such as the use of verbs and prepositions.

2) Please reorganize the sentence’s structure to make the expression more compact and concise.

3) Please divide the long confusing sentences. 

4) Please ensure the academic writing style of the manuscript.

3.  The summary suggests further improvement. It is suggested to modify the summary in such a structure: question and background - research methods and objectives - results - conclusions and understanding obtained from discussion - innovation and significance.

Note that the abstract helps the readers to find out quickly whether the writing is of interest or not, so it is important to clearly indicate the innovation and new progress of the paper, or explain the differences from the past understandings.

4. The keywords should be modified and screened, and they should be closely related to the content and easy to be retrieved in the database. It should reflect the content of the paper, and ranked according to its importance and the scope it describes.

5. In section 4. Materials and methods, it is recommended to firstly describe the overall design of the research, which can better attract readers. This conceptual design can include: the source of research ideas, the technical route of research, the goals that hope to achieve, et al.

6. Figure 1: Unit is missed in the legend.

Figure 11-a: lack of measuring scale.

Figure 9/Figure 12 needs further modification. The layout of the figure needs to be optimized.

Why to connect the values of several sub basins in Table 8?

There are two ‘average slope’ in Table 1. Please confirm.

7. I think this study is very interesting. And the writing and organization are relatively standardized. The significance of the research should be appropriately discussed, including the significance of law recognition and potential engineering or practical significance. This should be strengthened in the introduction, discussion and conclusion.

Author Response

Reviewer 1.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Morphometric evaluation and its incidence in the mass movements present in the Chicamocha Canyon, Colombia

The manuscript is interesting for national and international scientists. However, the following comments are needed to address before final acceptance.

1.    Figures 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9. Font size of legend should be increase so that it becomes more clear and can be readable.

2.    Please add updated references and remove old references

3.    Minor language, grammatical and spelling mistakes need to address.

Author Response

Reviewer 2.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

RE; This manuscript provides very good information on Morphometric evaluation in the mass movements present in the Chicamocha Canyon, Colombia provides. However, before accepting the manuscript for publication in the journal, it needs a series of revisions, some of which are mentioned below:

 

 

1- Line 60: Please add these two references to line 60 and in the list of references. In better words, write:

 

….. processes of weathering and erosion of these (Abedini and Calagari, 2017; Abedini and Khosravi, 2022).

 

Abedini, A., & Khosravi, M. (2022). Geochemical constraints on the Zola‑Chay river sediments, NW Iran: Implications for provenance and source‑area weathering. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 15, 1515.

 

Abedini, A., & Calagari, A. A. (2017). Geochemistry of claystones of the Ruteh Formation, NW Iran: Implications for provenance, source-area weathering, and paleo-redox conditions. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie – Abhandlungen 194, 107-123

 

 

2- The aim of the study should be written at the end of the introduction section. In the current form, I did not see any writing about this.

 

3- The legend section of figures needs to be checked for spelling errors. Please check all the figures. In some forms, the names of rocks are repeated. For example, in Figure 3, the conglomerate is repeated twice. Or the spelling of mudstone has a spelling mistake. The definition letter “and” in cases where two or more stones are defined and introduced, the last two stones should be written.

 

4- In the legend section of Figure 3, the age of the rock units should be written in full.

 

5- In the legend section of Figure 3: Neis???? I don't understand what this is?

 

6- In the legend section of Figure 3: Conglomeratic????? I don't understand what this is?

 

7- In the legend section of Figure 3: You just have to capitalize the first letter of the first word. In general, all lithologic units should be written according to the standard format.

 

8- In the legend section of Figure 3: It is not correct to bring the words sandstone and gravel together, because gravel is not the name of rock.

 

9- The text on figure 7 cannot be read due to the small size.

10- The figures given in the manuscript are of low quality and should be prepared and uploaded with high quality.

 

11- In the caption of Figure 10, the view direction of the images in the field should be added.

Author Response

Reviewer 3.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.       In Section Introduction, the innovations of this MS, that is, the difference from the existing researches, are not well introduced, and the introduction and examples of the existing methods are insufficient. I recommend to highlight the innovations and findings of the current work in Section Introduction.

2.       It is recommended to analysis the spatial auto-correlation of parameter and spatial cross-correlation of multiple parameters for mining co-located patterns of parameters and providing an insight into their interaction mechanisms. See doi:10.3390/app12042247

3.       It is recommended to add method flowchart in Section Methods for being clearly understood by readers.

4.       I suggest to highlight the values of the lower coefficients in Table 3 or delineate a threshold to better correspond to the main text on page 11.

5.       Each sub-figure in Figure 12 should have a separate serial number, and their names should be indicated in the figure name.

6.       It is recommended to add explanations of the accuracy and error of the assessment.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 4.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf