Modeling Dynamics of Soil Erosion by Water Due to Soil Organic Matter Change (1980–2020) in the Steppe Zone of Russia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Revision of High-resolution modeling of dynamics of water erosion (1980-
2020) in steppe zone due to climate change, Russia
Due to land use, soil erosion and their spatiotemporal changing, the paper covers an adequate topic. Areas show different resilience to climate change. Different types of land use (e.g. meadow, pasture, arable land, forest, barren land) can enhance and weaken climate change, soil and landscape degradation. Choosing the right land use type will be crucial in the coming decades.
The paper still have few flaws, mainly structurally and regarding its lengthy and wordy style. It should be significantly changed, and it is especially true for the Materials and Methods and the Conclusion.
Although the paper is statistics oriented, the results cannot be supported by the authors own field measurements. There are not adequate 4 decades length comparisons without historical/natural control. The title of the paper implies more soil science, geography, spatial analysis, and validation of spatial analysis maps. Therefore, I would expect a map for instance the positions of changing of land use at The Volgograd region area. Furthermore, it is not clear for the reader how the own measurements have been extended and how the authors' model GIS results have been correlated with field measurements during validation as control of results.
The chapter Conclusion is insufficiently ‘conclusive’. Broader implementation of the results is needed there.
General comment
Should to modify the title: High-resolution modeling of dynamics of water erosion (1980-2020) in steppe zone due to climate change, Volgograd region, Russia
Keywords should be modified with more specific words (e.g.): land use changing.
The term chestnut should be taken out of the article and the term Kastanozem should be used instead
Introduction
The introduction has sufficient size, when it compared to the other chapters. However, the important citations of relevant articles are missing from other countries. It caused that the readers thought that it could be only local problem. The aims are too general.
Material and method
Main problem with material methods is that the important information and simple insufficient construction of elementary description are missing.
What was the classification of the soil type at sample site? (WRB and USDA soil classification). What are descriptions of soil profiles? What was the soil textural type? What was the particle size distribution? How many was the clay% content? What are the soil classes and land use distribution at the region? How did the soil structure change after the land use changing? It is one of the most important parts when researcher writes about land use changing article. Need one of table about physical soil properties as particle size distribution, texture, CaCO3% content and pH. In the process of deposition, there are differences in nutrients moving between O and A horizon properties. What were the background values of nutrient? If the required changings have been made this part of manuscript could determinate the better understanding. By including the mentioned suggestions the revision of the material & methods is strongly recommended. The following sample area flowing maps are missing: location of region in Russia, soil classes, soil physical types and land use.
The methods of statistical analysis are appropriate.
Result and discussion
In general the following results are missing: Difference maps would be a more appropriate way of presenting the results, and consequently the spatial changes would be much more pronounced. The weakness of the paper is that spatial statistical parameter differences in the region without a environment descriptions and presentations (land use, slope classification, genetic classes and textural soil maps) of the material and methods are more difficult to interpret.
Comparisons and citations of the article with other studies should be moved to the discussion section by the authors.
Discussion part contains less citations, what have been cited in this part, have to mentioned in the introduction too.
The whole of Capital 3.7 have to move to Conclusion.
The references contains too few international examples.
Specific comments and questions:
Line (L.) 38: need more international references
L. 39 – 51: in This part have to mention ecosystem services.
L. 52 – 58: in This part have to mention the relevant IPPC Reports about precipitation spatial distribution changes.
L. 71 – 76: The aims are too general.
L. 77 - 91: What are the typical soils (WRB/USDA classification) at study area? What were the soils physical properties?
the following maps should be included: location of the Volograd region in Russia, soil classes, soil physics types and land use.
L. 116 – 133: How did the number of rainfall events exceeding 20mm change over the modelled period?
L. 174 – 176: What method was used to replace the missing data?
L. 189 – 212: It is not clear which method was used to validate the modelled values and whether they were compared with field measurements? Why do not use kappa analysis method for the classification accuracy?
L. 283- 287: This part have to move into Discussion chapter.
L. 306-315: This part have to move into Discussion chapter.
L. 342-347: This part have to move into Discussion chapter.
L.376-386: This part have to move into Discussion chapter.
L. 436 - 487: This chapter have to move into conclusion.
Conclusion
Unlike the other chapters of the "paper", Conclusion is way too short and does not directly flows from the results and goals. Secondly, how it could be implemented and compared for other land use areas? What sort of areas should be analyzed with the presented method? In order to use your results, list areas where your results may be potentially implemented or employed. The prime problems are the landscape and soil physics pattern is not applied in the manuscript. When one of article write about spatial distribution it is not enough to make statistical analysis without maps. The authors have to show the environmental background.
My final opinion is I am going to accept after minor revision (corrections to minor methodological errors and text editing).
It is acceptable.
Author Response
Hello, dear reviewer! Thank you very much for the detailed review of the publication. It dramatically helps to improve it and assists me in my growth as a researcher. I appreciate your valuable feedback. This article is my first "major publication," so please forgive me if I missed or misunderstood something. I will certainly address any issues you've pointed out.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript presents an interesting study comparing the effect of the soil organic matter in the change of soil erodibility. My principal concern is the methodology and the discussion. Firstly, the methods and models used for different Factor of RUSLE2 don’t correspond to study conditions. The section discussion is very poor and need more references and more information to discuss the erosion in the study region, the maps produced showed low rate of erosion that needs to be explained based on field observation and literature studies. The manuscript cannot be published in actual form, and major revision is recommended.
Line 1-2: Correct to title “modeling of dynamics of soil erosion by water erosion due to soil organic matter change (1980- 2020) in steppe zone (Russia).
Line 24: remove these keywords, because they were already used in the title:
climate change; water erosion; steppe”
Line 30: correct “water erosion “by “soil erosion by water” and all the documents.
Line 34: correct reference citation style.
Line 43: The authors need to explain how the climate change can affect the soil infiltration.
Line 59: what do you mean by “high resolution”?
Line 71-75: remove this section form the introduction, give more details about your objectives.
Line 84-87: the authors need to rewrite this section.
Line 89: remove this “(approximately 70% of the region’s square)”
Line 96: add reference.
Line 114: Add the resolution of each map used.
Line 124: Add the reference of the equation used for in the calculation of Erosivity R
Line 186: the model used for C-Factor is developed for tropical region, the authors need to choose another model. The map of land use is needed to understand the effect of the soil management systems in soil erosion.
Line 187: the authors need to give a table for the calculation of P-Factor.
Line 189: give the equation of the Empirical Bayesian Regression Kriging model.
Line 223: how did you calculate the Statistical characteristics of the R-factor presented in table 5? it is note presented in the methodology.
Line 256: Add the Map of DEM and Slope. These maps can help in the interpretation of the results.
Line 223: add the Unit of R-Factor in the table 5 and 6
Line 262: add the Unit of LS-Factor in the table 7 and 8
Line 382: To see the change in soil erosion by water the authors can add a map of difference of soil loss between 2010 and 1980, positive values will show an increase in erosion and negative values a decrease in erosion for each region.
Line 435 : More discussion et explanation are needed to understand the low rate of erosion in the study region.
Moderate revision of english language is needed.
Author Response
Hello, dear reviewer! Thank you very much for the detailed review of the publication. It dramatically helps to improve it and assists me in my growth as a researcher. I appreciate your valuable feedback. This article is my first "major publication," so please forgive me if I missed or misunderstood something. I will certainly address any issues you've pointed out.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
