Effects of Different Tillage Practices on Soil Stability and Erodibility for Red Soil Sloping Farmland in Southern China
, Yanli Li 1,2 and Hai Zhu 1,2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall comments
1. Abstract section describes mostly methods where fewer results were found. Better revised by including data in the abstract.
2. Introduction should need revision by removing unnecessary information and should concise the relevant litterateur
3. Line 260-272: The equation is unclear and broken. Should rewrite and simplify.
4. I found the spelling mistakes. The authors should be more careful to check the format of equations, units, subscripts and superscripts.
5. In method: Data analysis sections are unclear. Should need to find the meaning of using each equation.
6. Result and discussion should discuss comprehensibly.
7. English language should be checked by an expert to increase readability
Minor comments are attached in the pdf file.
Considering these, a significant revision is needed throughout the manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Ref: Agronomy-2338729.R1
Title: Effects of different tillage practices on soil stability and erodibility for red soil sloping farmland in southern China
Dear editor
Thank you very much for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. Below, please find our responses (shown in blue) to the comments and questions raised by the reviewers. We have seriously considered the comments and have made corrections and revisions that we hope will meet with approval. The revised sections in the manuscript are marked in red. Thank you again for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any further information or clarification regarding our manuscript.
Sincerely,
Responses to the Editor’s and Reviewers’ Comments
Reviewer 1
- Abstract section describes mostly methods where fewer results were found. Better revised by including data in the abstract.
Response: Thank you for the comments, and this suggestion is very importance for us.
We have revised the abstract, and appropriately supplemented the data in the results section.Please see line 12-28
- Introduction should need revision by removing unnecessary information and should concise the relevant litterateur
Response: Thank you for the comments, and this suggestion is very importance for us.
We have revised the introduction and removed unnecessary material.
- Line 260-272: The equation is unclear and broken. Should rewrite and simplify.
Response: Thank you for the comments, and this suggestion is very importance for us.
We have revised this formula and explained it.Please see line 268-289.
- I found the spelling mistakes. The authors should be more careful to check the format of equations, units, subscripts and superscripts.
Response: Thank you for the comments, and this suggestion is very importance for us.
We have revised all of the format of equations, units, subscripts and superscripts.
- In method: Data analysis sections are unclear. Should need to find the meaning of using each equation.
Response: Thank you for the comments, and this suggestion is very importance for us.
We have explained the meaning of each formula. Please see line 185-187,line 197-198, line 213-215, line 257-260.
- Result and discussion should discuss comprehensibly.
Response: Thank you for the comments, and this suggestion is very importance for us.
We have revised the discussion section and added the innovative points studied in this paper. Please see line 466-481.
- English language should be checked by an expert to increase readability
Response: Thank you for the comments, and this suggestion is very importance for us.
We have invited native English-speaking experts to revise the language of the article.
- Minor comments are attached in the pdf file.
Response: Thanks for your helpful suggestions, we have revised them, and figure 1 is an original by our team.
Thank you again for your comments on our paper.
All the corrections indicated above are marked in red in the revised manuscript. If you have any questions about our paper, please do not hesitate to let me know.
Thank you very much for the opportunity and kind advice.
Sincerely yours,
Prof. Dongmei Shi
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Congratulations for your hard work. I'll write some of my remarks, in order to improve your manuscript, which in my opinion can be published after minor corrections.
1. Most of the figures have several points (a, b, c...), which aren't explained in their titles. Please correct this.
2. Tables and figures are ovelapped in more than one place (Table 1 with Figure 2; Table 5 with Figure 5). Also, add the unit measures (e.g., in Table 1, Soil layer...).
3. All over the paper there are additional or missing spaces - between words, between words and citation number and so on.
4. Formulas are very difficult to be understood, as well as the calculation for F1-F4 factors. Please consider using subscript and superscript characters, where needed.
5. What is CLT (mentioned in row 521)?
6. Check again the References, since they don't have a similar format. Try to respect the requests regarding the cited papers.
7. In rows 222-229 there are 3 points - use separate lines for them.
Except the mentioned points, good structure of the paper and good Conclusions. As a recommendation, you can add here some personal opinion concerning the overall findings.
Best wishes,
Author Response
Ref: Agronomy-2338729.R1
Title: Effects of different tillage practices on soil stability and erodibility for red soil sloping farmland in southern China
Dear editor
Thank you very much for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. Below, please find our responses (shown in blue) to the comments and questions raised by the reviewers. We have seriously considered the comments and have made corrections and revisions that we hope will meet with approval. The revised sections in the manuscript are marked in red. Thank you again for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any further information or clarification regarding our manuscript.
Sincerely,
Responses to the Editor’s and Reviewers’ Comments
Reviewer 2
- Most of the figures have several points (a, b, c...), which aren't explained in their titles. Please correct this.
Response: Thank you for the comments, and this suggestion is very importance for us.
We have described the different subgraphs in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3in detail.
- Tables and figures are ovelapped in more than one place (Table 1 with Figure 2; Table 5 with Figure 5). Also, add the unit measures (e.g., in Table 1, Soil layer...).
Response: Thank you for the comments, and this suggestion is very importance for us.
we have revised them.
- All over the paper there are additional or missing spaces - between words, between words and citation number and so on.
Response: Thank you for the comments, and this suggestion is very importance for us.
we have revised them.
- Formulas are very difficult to be understood, as well as the calculation for F1-F4 factors. Please consider using subscript and superscript characters, where needed.
Response: Thank you for the comments, and this suggestion is very importance for us.
we have revised them. Please see line 266-289.
- What is CLT (mentioned in row 521)?
Response: Thank you for the comments, and this suggestion is very importance for us.
we have revised them.
- Check again the References, since they don't have a similar format. Try to respect the requests regarding the cited papers.
Response: Thank you for the comments, and this suggestion is very importance for us.
We have revised them. We checked the format requirements of the references in the paper template and revised them. But I still don't quite understand what the wrong format of the paper pointed out by the reviewer means.
- In rows 222-229 there are 3 points - use separate lines for them.
Response: Thank you for the comments, and this suggestion is very importance for us.
We have revised them.
Thank you again for your comments on our paper.
All the corrections indicated above are marked in red in the revised manuscript. If you have any questions about our paper, please do not hesitate to let me know.
Thank you very much for the opportunity and kind advice.
Sincerely yours,
Prof. Dongmei Shi
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. It is necessary to indicate the composition of the machine-tractor unit used in the research for tillage.
2. It is necessary to provide the technical characteristics of the tillage machine when conducting research.
3. It is advisable to present in further studies the variation in the indicators of the quality of tillage and the spread of soil erosion processes.
4. It is advisable in the graph of Figure 4 to reflect the composition of soil aggregates, in addition to the methods of tillage, also to present the type of tillage machine.
Author Response
Ref: Agronomy-2338729.R1
Title: Effects of different tillage practices on soil stability and erodibility for red soil sloping farmland in southern China
Dear editor
Thank you very much for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. Below, please find our responses (shown in blue) to the comments and questions raised by the reviewers. We have seriously considered the comments and have made corrections and revisions that we hope will meet with approval. The revised sections in the manuscript are marked in red. Thank you again for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any further information or clarification regarding our manuscript.
Sincerely,
Responses to the Editor’s and Reviewers’ Comments
Reviewer 3
It is necessary to indicate the composition of the machine-tractor unit used in the research for tillage.
Response: Thank you for the comments, and this suggestion is very importance for us.
We have attached a link to the detailed use of machinery in the article and supplemented Figure 12. Please see line 126-130.
- It is necessary to provide the technical characteristics of the tillage machine when conducting research.
Response: Thank you for the comments, and this suggestion is very importance for us.
In this paper, we provide a link to the mechanical technical characteristics, and add Figure 12 to the discussion, so that readers can intuitively feel the mechanical farming characteristics under different measures
- It is advisable to present in further studies the variation in the indicators of the quality of tillage and the spread of soil erosion processes.
Response: Thank you for the comments, and this suggestion is very importance for us.
In the future study, we will focus on the relationship between tillage quality index and soil erosion process, due to the limitation of the length of the article, this paper has not been added. Thanks again for the reviewer's comments and innovations.
- It is advisable in the graph of Figure 4 to reflect the composition of soil aggregates, in addition to the methods of tillage, also to present the type of tillage machine.
Response: Thank you for the comments, and this suggestion is very importance for us.
Figure 4 has labeled the composition distribution of aggregates with different particle sizes, but a better mapping method is not available at present, and we have attached a link to the detailed use of machinery in the article and supplemented Figure 12. Please see line 126-130.
Thank you again for your comments on our paper.
All the corrections indicated above are marked in red in the revised manuscript. If you have any questions about our paper, please do not hesitate to let me know.
Thank you very much for the opportunity and kind advice.
Sincerely yours,
Prof. Dongmei Shi
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
