Study on the Sand Reduction Effect of Slope Vegetation Combination in Loess Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work is very meaningful, the experimental design is rigorous, the data analysis is sufficient, the influence of various vegetation combinations on the slope sand reduction and erosion reduction benefits is analysed, and based on the theoretical analysis and indoor experiments, the optimal way of vegetation combinations with the sand reduction effect is analysed and determined. The quality could be improved from the following aspects.

 Abstract needs major revision, L9-L11 are poorly structured and should be reformulated by the authors to improve clarity and conciseness.

1.      The thesis should be revised in the introduction part, it needs to be more clearly stated the purpose, significance and current status discourse of the research, it is not argued clearly the inadequacy of the existing research and the urgency and necessity of the need for further research, in addition, this part should be avoided to pile up too much literature, so as to make it more structured, please add to improve it.

2.      Please make changes to the font size of formulas (4) 、(8) 、(10), which are not consistent with the other formulas.

3.      Figure 11 is more dense and less intuitive in terms of information, and it is recommended that the readability and interpretability of the chart be increased, in particular by simplifying the figure notes to better highlight the key findings of the study.

4.      The discussion section lacks depth and must be improved; there should be an in-depth discussion of the differences between the sand and erosion reduction effects of rigid and flexible vegetation, and further discussion of the effects of vegetation configurations on soil physico-chemical properties, such as the effect of rooting on the stability of the soil structure, in order to better explain the specific mechanisms of vegetation's role in sand reduction to open up the dialogue. The focus should not be solely on re-analysing the results.

5.      The conclusion should be simplified; it currently has too many branches.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The conclusion parts should be polished.

Author Response

Greetings!

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and your valuable suggestions for revision. Your comments are very important guidance for the further improvement of our study. We have carefully read your feedback and made detailed revisions and improvements to the manuscript.

We would like to sincerely thank you for your patient review and pertinent comments during your busy schedule. We have revised the article according to your suggestions, and the revision instructions and related materials have been submitted.

We look forward to hearing from you and thank you again for your support and assistance in our research!
Sincerely

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I revised the original manuscript entitled“Study on the Sand Reduction Effect of Slope Vegetation Combination in Loess Areas”.

This study, through indoor experiments, deeply explored the effects of different rigid-flexible vegetation combinations on sand reduction on slopes in the Loess Plateau, which holds significant academic and practical value. The findings not only reveal the mechanisms of soil erosion under various vegetation configurations but also clarify the important role of rigid-flexible vegetation combinations in soil and water conservation, filling a research gap in the sand reduction effects of mixed vegetation arrangements. The results of this study have profound implications for ecological restoration in the Loess Plateau and provide theoretical support and practical guidance for vegetation configurations in other erosion-prone regions. However, the following aspects still require improvement:

1. The abstract needs a more coherent logical structure, clearly outlining the research background, methodology, results, and conclusions, avoiding scattered result statements. The key contributions should be highlighted, while detailed descriptions of non-core results should be minimized to make the abstract more concise and focused.

2. The introduction should more clearly point out the "gaps" or deficiencies in current research to emphasize the necessity of this study. For example, although there is extensive research on vegetation arrangement, the specific mechanisms of the "rigid-flexible vegetation combination" in sand reduction on slopes remain insufficiently explored. Increasing the discussion on current research limitations would enhance the academic value of the paper.

3. In section four, particularly around line 270, it is recommended to add more in-depth explanations of the data, discussing why certain vegetation configurations show different erosion reduction effects as slope increases, and exploring how these differences may be attributed to vegetation structure. Relevant literature should be cited to support these explanations, providing greater theoretical depth to the results.

4. Although the discussion part analyzes the effects of vegetation on soil and water conservation and sediment control in detail, it lacks an in-depth exploration of the interaction between vegetation and slope hydrodynamics. Further elaboration on how vegetation alters runoff structure, flow velocity, and turbulence characteristics, and how these mechanisms weaken under different hydrodynamic conditions, would be beneficial.

5. It is suggested that the author include more recent studies in the field in the references section to enhance the study's cutting-edge nature and academic breadth. Specifically, citing more authoritative international studies on slope erosion mechanisms and vegetation configuration optimization strategies will strengthen the theoretical foundation and academic impact of the paper, making it more comprehensive.

This paper systematically investigates the relationship between slope erosion and vegetation configuration in the Loess Plateau, proposing new vegetation optimization strategies that hold significant scientific and practical value. Although some details may require minor adjustments, the overall framework is sound, and the research methodology and conclusions are innovative. Therefore, it is recommended that the paper be accepted after revision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript was wrritten in good English.

Author Response

Greetings!

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and your valuable suggestions for revision. Your comments are very important guidance for the further improvement of our study. We have carefully read your feedback and made detailed revisions and improvements to the manuscript.

We would like to sincerely thank you for your patient review and pertinent comments during your busy schedule. We have revised the article according to your suggestions, and the revision instructions and related materials have been submitted.

We look forward to hearing from you and thank you again for your support and assistance in our research!
Sincerely

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript under review is devoted to the possibility of vegetation to reduce erosion and sand production. The authors selected such region as Loess Plateau. It makes their finding very interesting from both theoretic as well as practical points of view. They made direct field experimental studies, their results are of great interest to all specialists working in the field of erosion all around the world.

The experimental design, as well as the conditions of their fulfillment are described in details, so the experiments can be repeated by every other research team in their particular site and case, if they have enough qualification, time and physical as well as financial possibilities. Theoretical background is presented in the manuscript and it looks sound and is correct for such work, the analysis of results is fulfilled as actual masterpiece.  

The discussion of the results obtained is also fulfilled as exemple of special artwork and the conclusions of the authors are deeply rooted both in their experimental results as well as in the analysis of current knowledges of the processes described. They effectively proved that single row staggered rigid-flexible combination of vegetation is the most effective against slope erosion in the conditions studied and can be used in loess areas.

The only minor remark of the reviewer – the use of abbreviations in conclusion and abstract decreases the readability of the text and it is better to avoid the abbreviations in these parts of the text body. The paper can be published practically as it is after these extremely minor revisions.

Author Response

Greetings!

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and your valuable suggestions for revision. Your comments are very important guidance for the further improvement of our study. We have carefully read your feedback and made detailed revisions and improvements to the manuscript.

We would like to sincerely thank you for your patient review and pertinent comments during your busy schedule. We have revised the article according to your suggestions, and the revision instructions and related materials have been submitted.

We look forward to hearing from you and thank you again for your support and assistance in our research!
Sincerely

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It can be accepted now.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

it is ok.