Effects of Different Tillage Practices on Slope Erosion Characteristics of Peanut Field

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

dear editor the authors:

1. They should adjust the abstract of the article, it is too long.

2. Include technical details and schematics of the rainfall simulator used.

3. Improve the deduction of the results by indicating what would happen with different textures and structures, as well as the contribution of organic matter.

4. It should include a conclusion and recommendation with management practices, thinking about the technical and environmental sustainability of the soil.

Regards

Edwin

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study mainly investigated the hydrodynamic parameters and erosion response of peanut field as affected by tillage practices (i.e., longitudinal ridge tillage, cross ridge tillage, flat tillage, and hole sowing) and rainfall intensities (60-120 mm/h). After carefully reading:

(1)  Section 2.1: The specific data information of both rainfall and temperature of each month during the experiment should be provided. Moreover, the initial soil moisture contents and bulk densities of various layers in the range of tillage depth need to be clarified.

(2)  Lines 101-102: How to determine the levels of rainfall intensities in this experiments? Please explain it.

(3)  Figures 2 and 3: why there are no letters or other symbols to represent the significance level between different treatments. Please supplement them.

(4)  References: the DOI numbers should be provided to allow readers to track and find the literature information in relation to this manuscript.

(5)  The language should be improved as many grammatical errors were found, e.g., Line 80, “Consequently, this study employs a field artificial rainfall…” should be “Consequently, this study employed a field artificial rainfall…”. Moreover, “Our objective is to reveal the characteristics of runoff…” should be “Our objective was to reveal the characteristics of runoff …”.

The language should be improved as many grammatical errors were found, e.g., Line 80, “Consequently, this study employs a field artificial rainfall…” should be “Consequently, this study employed a field artificial rainfall…”. Moreover, “Our objective is to reveal the characteristics of runoff…” should be “Our objective was to reveal the characteristics of runoff …”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and observations to improve the quality of the article:

1. Line 96. What it means purple soil? It would be good to provide the name of the soil according to the WRB classification.

2. Lines 96-97. Other soil properties should be presented, especially the humus content, which depends on the erosion intensity.

3. Line 97. It would be good to provide the name of soil texture based on the soil texture triangle. For example: loam.

4. Lines 98-99. It is not clear what it means "... liquid limit is 32.9%, plastic limit is 19.4%..."

5. Line 102. More information of rainfall distribution should be provided. It is not clear if 60, 90, 120 mm h^-1   is the normal amount in your country or for subtropical monsoon climate. Why these amounts of precipitation was chosen.

6. Lines 114-115. If the field was left fallow for one year, weeds should have grown in the field experiment plots during that time. How were they controlled?

7. Lines 114-115. It is not clear which statistical analysis was  done.
A two-factor analysis would be best way.

8. Line 190. It is not clear why is written "... no significant difference in runoff volume..." The data in Table 1. suggest otherwise.

9. Lines 202-204. It is written "This indicated that as the rainfall intensity increased, the influence of rainfall on runoff decreases, while the influence of tillage practices became stronger." This statement can best supported by an analysis of two factors.

10. It would be good to provide explanations of abbreviations under each table and figure.

11. It is not clear what is provided in the Tables 1-2 and Figures 2-3. Standard error, standard deviation or confident interval? It should be written.

12. Lines 304-307. These statements can be supported only by  two factors analysis.

13. Subsection 3.2.3. it written "Resistance coefficient" but in the subsection 2.4.3. and Figures 3-4. "Drag coefficient". It should be written the same way.

14. Very similar situation with expression "Runoff shear stress" and "Runoff shear force". It should be written the same way.

15. In the Table 5 are provided a lot of functional  relationship. If according to the formula, having one value, the value of another parameter can be calculated, it is a functional relationship but not a correlational one. In additional, if the value of the correlation coefficient is equal to one, this relationship is unreliable in all cases, as it is characteristic of a functional relationship.

16. There are many other comments in the article. Pay attention to this.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Abstract 

1.     Line 14: Please, indicate the three rainfall intensities

2.     Line 15: Please, I think “Hole Sowing” is not tillage practice, but sowing method. The appropriate form is “zero tillage”

3.     Please, conclude by highlighting the research's potential applications in the future and how these might help other researchers.

4.     Please, keywords are NOT based on MDPI format. As a suggestion: tillage practices; purple soil; runoff characteristics and sediment yield; hydrodynamic parameters; Sichuan Basin, China.

Introduction 

1.     Please, your phrases are too long and no easy to understand.

Materials and Methods

1.      Study Area Overview: Please, add study area map

2.      Research Methods

Lines 102 to 105: please, what was the type of tillage (manual or motorized)? What was the depth of the tillage?

Lines 106: Please, indicate the plot area

3.      Data Collection: the data collection methods are less precise. Please, provide more explanations

Results

The section “Results” is NOT based on MDPI format. Please, separate the section “Discussion” to “Results” and remove the phrases below as:

1.      Lines 292 – 294: Remove this phrase from “Results” to “Discussion”

2.      Lines 319 – 322: Remove this phrase from “Results” to “Discussion”

3.      Lines 337 – 341: Remove this phrase from “Results” to “Discussion”

4.      Lines 356 – 359: Remove this phrase from “Results” to “Discussion”

5.      Lines 376– 378: Remove this phrase from “Results” to “Discussion”

6.      Lines 380 – 382: Remove this phrase from “Results” to “Discussion”

7.      Lines 398 – 400: Remove this phrase from “Results” to “Discussion”

8.      Lines 417 – 418: Remove this phrase from “Results” to “Discussion”

9.      Lines 433 – 435: Remove this phrase from “Results” to “Discussion”

In the same way, I would strongly encourage the authors to examine all points when discussing their major point: the method's limits, considerations for when to apply the approach under study, and potential next steps or additional research to address these shortcomings.

Please, use more recent references in discussion

Conclusion

1.      Please, conclude by highlighting the research's potential applications in the future and how these might help other researchers.

References

References are essentially based on MDPI format. However, I think the number of references to be so few. Please, add more the recent references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All the comments and suggestions have been solved by authors and the manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Agronomy.  

Author Response

Thank you very much.

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate your efforts in correcting the article, but the article still needs improvement. My comments:

1. Lines 103-106. This information is good, but it is more important to provide the total amount of humus

2. Line 139. How were controlled weeds in the plots of field experiment when you left fallow?

In response to the comments, you answered that "During this year, we would weed once a week to keep the experimental community in a bare land state during the year of abandonment", but this information is important to know not only for me, but also for other readers of the article.

It is also important to know how the weeds were controlled during the year of the experiment? If the weeds were weeded, then the question arises whether this could also have affected the erosion?

3. Lines 196-201. In your Response 7. you wrote that "In order to reflect the significance between different treatments, we re-used two factors analysis and used the Duncan method to test for significance." But it should be written in this subsection too.

4. Tables 2-3 and Figures 4-5. The same notation is for several indicators: standard error, standard deviation or confidence interval, so it should be explained which indicator is presented.

5. Tables 2-3 and Figures 4-5.  After two-factor analysis, you should mark lowercase all the data. It means you should compered all 12 results (means) with each other but not to compared both factors separatetly. It would be clearer and explain the obtained results more.

6. Each table or figure should be provided by explanations of abbreviations. This is informative and does not require the reader to go back to look up the meaning of abbreviations.

7. Figures 7-8 and Tables 4-5. The same order of treatments should be maintained.

8. Line 410. A link to this source must be provided.

9. Table 6. This table shows many functional but not correlational relationships.
If, given one indicator, another indicator can be calculated by a formula, it is a functional relationship.

10. In the text you should provide only last name. It is misquoted especially in the discussion section.

11. Perhaps after a normal analysis of the two factors, you should check the conclusions.

12. The list of references is not prepared according to the requirements.

13. Other observations in the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Abstract 

1.     Line 12: Please, indicate the three rainfall intensities as (60 – 90 - 120 mm/h)

2.     Line 13: Please, I think “Hole Sowing” is not tillage practice, but sowing method. The appropriate form is “zero tillage”. So, Please, indicate the four tillage practices as (longitudinal ridge tillage, cross ridge tillage, flat tillage, and zero tillage)

Discussion

Please, use more recent references in discussion

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx