The Characteristics of Rainfall-Runoff Generation and Its Influencing Factors in a Desert Steppe, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
What is the novelty of this paper? PCA was previously often utilised.
The manuscript's overall writing and organisation are fairly weak and should be improved. The introduction should be improved, and the discussion should be cut short.
Line 98. Why did you choose the term "watershed"? Why didn't you use a basin?
Line 105. Rerence?
Line 109. Refrence?
Line 110. Figure 1's quality is rather weak. Why did you select the experiment region?
114 and 115 lines What does sunny sloope mean? Do you mean south aspect? Why did you choose such a small watershed? In terms of hydrological keywords, the authors didn't use appropriate words.
Line 129. Incorrect English grammar.
Line 137. The manuscript contains numerous English grammar mistakes.
Line 148. What exactly are the vertical axes?
Line 225. What exactly is cm3? Rewrite it.
Line 232. You do not need to utilise silty loam soil; just silty loam is sufficient.
Line 271. Rainfall-runoff replace
Line 333. The quality of figure 5 is rather weak.
For example: Line 137. The manuscript contains numerous English grammar mistakes.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Line 345-354, Line 355-370: Consider if this data is appropriate for a regression model. Please reassess.
Line 259, Line 268: The R package was used for PCA and SEM. The specific name of the package should be provided.
The significance level for PCA and SEM should be specified.
Line 393: The reliability analysis was not mentioned in the data analysis section.
Line 397-409: This section should be moved to the data analysis part. Additionally, the criteria for selecting the best model should be clearly outlined. Also, please provide more detailed statistical results for the SEM.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In summary, the authors were able to show through field experiments and comprehensive statistics the intercorrelation among various hydrometeorological variables (e.g.: Rainfall intensity, Soil Water Content, Vegetation Cover, Above ground Biomass) and how they influence runoff generation.
The results were in harmony with the research objectives and provided answers to the research questions.
General comments
The paper introduces a very important and contemporary topic. Extreme weather phenomena, such as torrential rainfalls have been occurring with an increasing frequency over the past decade or two, reflecting the consequences of global climate change. This extreme pattern is especially typical in areas of semiarid and arid climates, like in the case of Inner Mongolia. Hence, the topic of the manuscript is extremely adequate.
This introduction was done meticulously with adequate papers cited. Objectives were absolutely clear and, as I pointed out, appropriate these days.
In terms of methodology, research was performed in a rigorous way, with appropriate methods, perhaps with a bit too much ecological footprint (quite a bit of concrete was used for the experimental plots). However, it is a widely used method, but as I mentioned has been carried out in a meticulous way. Secondly, the authors processed their measured data extensively with a wide range of statistical method. The results were in harmony with the research objectives and provided answers to the research questions
As a result, the authors showed the intercorrelation among the measured variables (Rainfall intensity, soil water content, vegetation cover, above-ground biomass) and how they influence runoff generation.
The MS has only 2 shortcomings. Firstly, it is burdened with a plethora of acronyms which makes reading and comprehension of text difficult. Please reduce the number of acronyms. Secondly, the English of the MS shall be improved massively. I strongly recommend to proofread the text with a native English speaker. Even the title is incorrect (an ‘a’ is missing). Actually, I would even rephrase the title to make it more appealing.
In summary, the MS reflect a rigorous work, indicating that the authors invested a lot of work and money to accomplish their results. After a massive improvement of the English of the MS I recommend the paper for approval. I would also be happy to review the revised version of the paper.
Specific comments
Line 104. What was the monitoring period for the mean annual rainfall totals?
Figure 1. An overall map of China would be handy for the international readership.
L. 141: Sentence grammatically incorrect. Reword pls.
L.143: Why would be the smallest intensity 40 mm/h? That is not possible. The lowest RI must be almost zero. I mean it is all right selecting 40 mm/h, but the reasoning is incorrect. What was the duration of that rainfall? Intensity-duration functions would be needed in this case.
Figure 3. Label Y-axes. Titles are missing.
L. 153: “bulk density”, pls. correct
L. 158: underground pipes? Be more specific here.
Figure 4. Area labels are incorrect. Use m instead of m2. In the figure caption indicate how water was conveyed from the plots to the pools.
Table 2. Unit is incorrect (g m-3)
Line 209. Be more specific here. EC-5 is manufactured by Meter Group Inc., Pullman, WA, United Sates. Indicate.
Line 236. Why is wind erosion so important? Because of the dry climate? Needs more explanation.
L. 272: Start time of run off, duration to....
L. 275: "At the start of rainfall"
L. 278: Why did runoff cumulative runoff increase at time 40mins so significantly huge compared to RI IN 20mm/h & 40mm/h respectively? Soils were extremely dry at their initial state (shown in Table 2), so, they should have soaked up any water.
L. 290: (rephrase the sentence) At higher RI and severe degradation level, there exist faster runoff and more runoff generation.
L. 328: Soil infiltration is good/satisfactory
L. 339: slopes is the correct spelling. Check this throughout the text.
L. 343: (REPHRASE SENTENCE)Durations of delayed run-off were not considered in the calculations of RC
L. 349: In contrast with 347 (should be "no positive linear correlation")
L. 364: Sentence shall be reworded.
L. 397: “according to”
L. 404: "delete" not deletes
L. 443: “following a rainfall event”
L. 450: (rephrase sentence) As time progressed.....decreasing infiltration
L. 458: sentence needs rewording
L. 493: Previous studies/local geology, silt loam has moderate permeability
L. 544: Run-off start time or start time of run-off
L. 555: Barren/arid in place of litter
Figure 10: Correct axis labels (slop vs. slopes)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments to the authors:
The manuscript addresses an important topic concerning rainfall-runoff generation in desert steppe ecosystems. The study conducted an artificial rainfall simulation experiment to investigate the characteristics and mechanisms of runoff generation. While the manuscript contains valuable insights, there are areas that need improvement in terms of clarity, depth, and presentation of findings. Therefore, in my opinion, some big issues should be addressed and improved before the manuscript can be published.
Major comments:
1. The introduction lacks clear research objectives and hypotheses. It should explicitly state what the study aims to investigate and what knowledge gaps it intends to address.
2. It would be helpful to provide a more in-depth discussion of previous studies, including their strengths and limitations, to better establish the research gap that this study aims to address.
3. The introduction could be more focused on the specific ecological and hydrological context of desert steppe ecosystems.
4. It would be beneficial to include in Figure 1 additional information, such as the nearest town or geographical landmarks, to help readers better understand the study's location.
5. While the selection of three degradation levels (LD, MD, HD) is mentioned, the criteria for categorizing plots into these levels are not clearly explained. Providing specific criteria for degradation level classification would enhance the transparency of the study.
6. It may be helpful to provide a summary or equation for calculating runoff coefficients (RC) based on the collected data.
7. The explanation of soil texture determination is missing from the methodology. If soil texture was considered in the study, it should be described here, including the methods and instruments used for analysis.
8. Since data collection and analysis are critical aspects of the study, it would be helpful to include information on data quality control and validation procedures to ensure the reliability of the results.
9. The PCA results are briefly mentioned, but it would be beneficial to include a summary of the main findings from PCA. What are the principal components, and how do they relate to the research questions? Additionally, consider providing the explained variance for each principal component to assess the importance of each in explaining the variation.
10. The SEM is a critical part of your analysis, but the description provided is somewhat limited. Readers may benefit from a more detailed explanation of the SEM model's structure, the specific variables included, and the rationale behind including them. Additionally, it would be useful to provide a summary of the SEM results, highlighting the main relationships and their significance.
11. It's essential to conclude this section by summarizing the key findings and their implications. Help the reader understand the main takeaways from this extensive analysis.
12. While the discussion mentions that land degradation levels have a significant impact on runoff starting time and runoff coefficient, it could delve deeper into the ecological and hydrological consequences of land degradation in desert steppe ecosystems. What are the broader implications for ecosystem health, soil erosion, or water availability in these areas?
13. The discussion touches on the challenge of scaling up from plot-scale findings to watershed-scale understanding. It might be beneficial to briefly discuss the limitations and potential future research directions related to upscaling these findings and their applicability to larger landscapes.
14. The conclusions section is too brief and lacks specificity. It should summarize the main findings and their implications more comprehensively. Specifically, it should discuss the ecological significance of the results, offer practical recommendations for soil and water conservation, and identify avenues for future research.
The manuscript should be carefully checked for language and grammatical errors. Some sentences are too complex and may make it difficult for the reader to understand. Simplifying the language and improving overall readability will improve the quality of the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
To be honest, I am no expert on such topics, but I found the
experiment interesting.
The figures are a bit difficult to interpret.
Sometimes they lacks details (e.g., Fig. 1)
and in other cases they show too many details for their size.
Please enlarge most of the figures.
The text could be more succint.
Please revise some of the English
As an example:
lines 230-239: unclear statement
line 339: slopes
.... and other places. Please revise critically.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 6 Report
The authors used many models as the Regression analysis, the principal component analysis (PCA) and Structural Equation Model to say the correlation between the Rainfall-runoff Generation Characteristic.
General review:
1. Generally, the manuscript presents a very interesting topic and the specific research seems to include some significant points for the research community of this field.
2. The proposed paper is very well written with very good use of English language. This paper is written with a very good scientific style.
3. The proposed paper is very well structured. It begins with an analytical Introduction with the appropriate references that helps the reader to get into the subject immediately.
4. The results scientifically explained with the use of the appropriate scientific literature.
5. The quality of the work in Discussion section is very high and qualitative.
6. Conclusions are appropriate for this paper.
However, some Points has been found in this manuscript, where the authors need to revision it:
1. Figure 1: must be completely changed
1.1. The figure 1: is blurry, I suggest enlarging this figure a little, for increase the visibility of each map.
1.2. Add numeration for each map (a,b,c).
1.3. I suggest also to add for the last map which represent the study area: 1-DEM, 2: hydrographic network to see the direction and intensities of stream order for this area.
1.4. The samples are not clear in the map three.
2. Line 114: the authors need to something here to explain this choice (why: the middle to lower part of a sunny slope of the small watershed).
3. Line 245 -246: in this sentence (The runoff height is obtained via dividing the collected runoff volume of 245 each rainfall event by the plot area is obtained via dividing the collected runoff volume of 245 each rainfall event by the plot area), the authors need to add an equation which explain this, how can obtained the runoff height.
4. Line 247: what’s the different vegetation characteristics that used here.
5. Line 249 to 259: additionally, to the PCA, the authors need to confirm that the result obtained is correctly by using the test to approval these results.
6. Line 371 to 386: I suggest to the authors to add a table which represented correlation between the different parameters and the factors (F1,F2,F3…). Maybe we some parameters more correlation in the PC3. And below this paragraph, it should be adding the test which required above.
7. Figure 10: I suggest to remove this figure from discussion to the results.
Respecting the above mention requirements, the manuscript in current version does not meet the publication criteria. I would suggest significant improvement is necessary and the paper may be again submitted to the journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
For your information, the use of watershed and basin is typically determined by the area square metre. If the case study is too large, utilise basin; otherwise, use the watershed.
Author Response
Thanks for your suggestion. Our study site is not too large. Thus, we decided to use the term “watershed”. Thank you again for your serious reviewing.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is indeed commendable work. However, I am afraid that the data is not appropriate for the regression model, as the independent variables were not truly independent.
Author Response
Thanks very much for your full consideration in all aspects. We should carry out another independent experiment in the future to determine if such data sets are appropriate for the regression model. Otherwise, there is no way to conduct more further analysis due to the current amount of data. Thanks again, your suggestion will have great contribution to improve our ability of data analysis.
Reviewer 4 Report
Congratulations to the authors,
Now, I recommend the manuscript for further acceptance
Author Response
Thank you so much for your suggestions and comments.
Reviewer 6 Report
The authors has been response to my comments as I suggest. So, I accept the publication of this work in this journal.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your suggestions and comments.
