The Contradictory Issue of the Impact of Antecedent Soil Moisture to Interrill Erosion in Clay Soil: A Two-Year Field Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
GENERAL COMMENTS
The study presents the analysis of two-year runoff plot experiments under natural rainfall and evaluated the relationship between antecedent moisture and interrill erosion. The manuscript subject is of great interest to Water readers and fall within the scope of the journal.
Summary if very well written. The introduction section presents a concise and yet very useful panorama of how the effect of antecedent soil moisture on erosion has been interpreted. The research goals are clearly contextualized and set.
The methodology section is very well structured and written. The level of detail is high and allows the reproduction of the study and analyses in other settings. The methodology is adequate for the intended goals. I have a few minor questions detailed in the specific comments, including the suggestion to add a few mores details and illustrations regarding the field testing/monitoring setup.
Results and discussions require minor improvements, as detailed in the “specific comments”. The long reasoning behind Figure 8 is explained in a convincing way.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Line 37. Weathering, transport, deposition, consolidation, among other geological processes […]
Line s 102.-107. It would be useful to specify the depth of samples used to soil characterization.
In terms of soil profile, how uniform is the first 100 cm of soil? What are the basal flow conditions expected to be? Was the soil profile studied?
Lines 109-114. I believe that detailed technical drawings of the field setup (geometry, collection tank, instrumentation, etc.) and actual pictures of the testing site would be useful to readers.
Line 137. Runoff was associated with precipitation events of 19 mm or higher. That simple association is somewhat incomplete, since runoff depends also on precipitation intensity. Could the authors include comments on that?
Line 219. I suggest placing Table 1 after the first page of the results section.
Lines 235-243 and Table 2. Please specify what type of correlation analysis was adopted (e.g., Spearman?) and indicate p-values and statistically significant correlations. Is the relatively weak correlation between soil loss and TILR statistically significant?
Lines 283-290 and Figure 3. I’m not convinced that discussions are supported by the results presented in Figure 3. Coefficients of determination (R2) values were not presented, and I believe that they are pretty low.
Lines 291-295. Please specify what type of correlation analysis was adopted (e.g., Spearman?) and indicate p-values and statistically significant correlations.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
QUALITY OF ENGLISH
The quality of English expression is adequate for the most part. However, there are numerous small mistakes that must be corrected. I recommend a detailed revision of the manuscript to fix English expression issues. I have pointed out a few in my “specific comments”.
Title: I suggest changing to “impact on”
Line 24. Use characteristics without capital C
Line 69. “there are studies suggest” please correct grammar
Line 110. “A total of”, add the article “a”
Line 148. The longer.. the lower… (add the article “the”)
Line 157. “a” total of 20 mm.
Line 164. Use “events” in plural form?
Line 191. Resulted in a tank with (add “in”)
Line 198. Finally yielding
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below, as well as the highlighted corrections in the re-submitted files. The highlighted corrections include suggestions from other reviewers. We kindly request your further review and greatly appreciate your time.
Comments 1: Line 37. Weathering, transport, deposition, consolidation, among other geological processes […]
Response 1 : Corrected as suggested.
Comments 2: Line 102.-107 It would be useful to specify the depth of samples used to soil characterization. In terms of soil profile, how uniform is the first 100 cm of soil? What are the basal flow conditions expected to be? Was the soil profile studied?
Response 2 : For the sake of clarity, we revised the paragraph from Line 119 to Line 124 to accommodate reviewer’s suggestions and comments.
Comments 3: Line 109~ 114. I believe that detailed technical drawings of the field setup (geometry, collection tank, instrumentation, etc.) and actual pictures of the testing site would be useful to readers.
Response 3 : Drawing of field setup is added as Figure 1. Picture of collection tank is also added to the revised version as Figure 4.
Comments 4: Line 137 Runoff was associated with precipitation events of 19 mm or higher. That simple association is somewhat incomplete, since runoff depends also on precipitation intensity. Could the authors include comments on that?
Response 4 : For the sake of clarity, we added our comments to the revision as that shown from Lines 156 to 160.
Comments 5: Line 219I suggest placing Table 1 after the first page of the results section.
Response 5 : Revised as suggested.
Comments 6: Line 235-243. and Table 2. Please specify what type of correlation analysis was adopted (e.g., Spearman?) and indicate p-values and statistically significant correlations. Is the relatively weak correlation between soil loss and TILR statistically significant?
Response 6 : We revised the paragraph as that shown from Line 265 to Line 278. We also mark the data having statistical insignificant in Table 2.
Comments 7: Line 283~290. and Figure 3. I’m not convinced that discussions are supported by the results presented in Figure 3. Coefficients of determination (R2) values were not presented, and I believe that they are pretty low.
Response 7 : Due to revision, Figure 3 now becomes Figure 5. We added coefficients of determination (R2) to each trend as suggested. We also revised the discussion regarding the trends in Figure 5 as that shown from Line 317 to Line 331.
Comments 8: Line 291~295. Please specify what type of correlation analysis was adopted (e.g., Spearman?) and indicate p-values and statistically significant correlations.
Response 8 : We revised the paragraph as that shown from Line 265 to Line 278.We also mark the data having statistical insignificant in Table 2.
Comments 9: I suggest changing to “impact on”
Response 9 : Corrected as suggested
Comments 10: Use characteristics without capital C.
Response 10 : Corrected as suggested.
Comments 11: there are studies suggest” please correct grammar.
Response 11 : Corrected as suggested.
Comments 12: “A total of”, add the article “a”
Response 12 : Corrected as suggested.
Comments 13: The longer.. the lower… (add the article “the”)
Response 13 : Corrected as suggested.
Comments 14: Line 157. a” total of 20 mm.
Response 14 : Corrected as suggested.
Comments 15: Line 164. Use “events” in plural form?
Response 15 : Corrected as suggested.
Comments 16: Line 191. Resulted in a tank with (add “in”)
Response 16 : Corrected as suggested.
Comments 17: Line 198. Finally yielding
Response 17 : Corrected as suggested.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
After reviewing the manuscript "Contradictory Issue of The Impact of Antecedent Soil Moisture to Interrill Erosion in Clay Soil: A Two-year Field Study" I recommend its publication after moderate revision. The manuscript requires a thorough review by a copy editor. Many of my specific comments below are related to word choice and I only report grammar/word choice comments for the first two pages. The main contribution of the manuscript is the presentation of a detailed analysis of two years of rainfall runoff data from hillslope plots. For their soil type and conditions the authors found that antecedent soil moisture conditions were only related to soil loss for lower intensity and relatively short duration rain events. For longer duration and higher intensity events antecedent moisture conditions were less important. In general I found the analysis to be quite subjective, in particular those presented Figures 3, 4 and 5. For figure 3 are any of the relationships depicted significant? The authors should explain their rational for splitting up the data into the dashed and solid line groups in Figure 5. Why are the data outside of the solid line group but below 0.15 excluded What is the decision rule used? The windrose plot is confusing can the authors present a clear explanation as to its usefulness? Finally, the authors should circle back and compare their results to those presented in the Introduction do their results fit with what has been published in the literature. Also how might their results change with a different soil texture? Specific comments below"
Line 21 place “is” before “strongly”
Line 29 replace “resulted” with “resulting”, replace “down the slopes” with “from hillslopes”.
Line 31 replace “always been attracting researchers’” with “received much research attention”
Line 34 add “and” before “SWAT”.
Line 36 replace “were” with “are”
Line 52 Can the authors provide the geographic context for Fortesa et al.’s (2020) work?
Line 56 replace “would” with “all”
Line 59 replace “at” with “for”
Line 62 change “coefficient” with “coefficients”
Line 69 add “that” before “suggest”
Line 76 I’m not sure what “surface runoff was easily controlled by the moisture content of the surface soil.” means?
Line 80 replace “raise of” with “a rise in”
Line 83 replace “the raise of” with “a rise in”
Line 90 delete “at”
Line 92 Change “when implementing outside the” to “when implementing the model outside of”
Line 93 replace “raise” with “lead to”
Line 94 change “raise” to “be raised”
Line 120- The use of 1 volumetric soil moisture sensor per plot is a weakness in the study as soil moisture can vary dramatically over short distances. Did the authors assess the variability in soil moisture at the plot scale?
Line 163 “Tb and Te (Figure 1)” should be “Tbb and Teb (Figure 1)”
Line 195 The authors should provide additional details about their volume collection. “ Therefore, when runoff accu- mulated in the second and third pools, the runoff volume in the second pool was multi-plied by 6 and runoff volume in the third pool was multiplied by 36, and then added to the runoff volume collected in the first pool, finally yielded the total runoff volume of the event.” Where does “6” and “36” come from?
Figure 3- There is a lot of scatter in the data particularly for the 0-3 hour duration events are any of the trends shown significant?
Figure 5- This seems to be a very subjective division of the data – Why doesn’t the solid line group include all the data below 0.15?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
A thorough review by a copy editor is required. A large number of word choice/grammar errors are present in the current version of the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below, as well as the highlighted corrections in the re-submitted files. The highlighted corrections include suggestions from other reviewers. We kindly request your further review and greatly appreciate your time.
Comments 1: Line 21 place “is” before “strongly”
Response 1: Corrected as suggested.
Comments 2: Line 29 replace “resulted” with “resulting”, replace “down the slopes” with “from hillslopes”.
Response 2: Corrected as suggested.
Comments 3: Line 31 replace “always been attracting researchers’” with “received much research attention”
Response 3: Corrected as suggested.
Comments 4: Line 34 add “and” before “SWAT”.
Response 4: Corrected as suggested.
Comments 5: Line 36 replace “were” with “are”
Response 5: Corrected as suggested.
Comments 6: Line 52 Can the authors provide the geographic context for Fortesa et al.’s (2020) work?
Response 6: The location of Fortesa et al.’s work is added.
Comments 7: Line 56 replace “would” with “all”
Response 7: Corrected as suggested.
Comments 8: Line 59 replace “at” with “for”
Response 8: Corrected as suggested.
Comments 9: Line 62 change “coefficient” with “coefficients”
Response 9: Corrected as suggested.
Comments 10: Line 69 add “that” before “suggest"
Response 10: Corrected as suggested.
Comments 11: Line 76 I’m not sure what “surface runoff was easily controlled by the moisture content of the surface soil.” means?
Response 11:
We have revised the text as follows:
“They concluded that surface runoff was not depended on the antecedent soil moisture content in the case of high rainfall intensity or low permeable soil; however, if low in-tensity rainfall occurred on higher permeable soil, surface runoff is controlled by initial soil moisture content.” Revisions are replaced from Line 77 to Line 80.
Comments 12: Line 80 replace “raise of” with “a rise in
Response 12 Corrected as suggested.
Comments 13: Line 83 replace “the raise of” with “a rise in”
Response 13: Corrected as suggested.
Comments 14: Line 90 delete “at”
Response 14: Corrected as suggested.
Comments 15: Line 92 Change “when implementing outside the” to “when implementing the model outside of”
Response 15: Corrected as suggested.
Comments 16: Line 93 replace “raise” with “lead to”
Response 16: Corrected as suggested.
Comments 17: Line 94 change “raise” to “be raised”
Response 17: Corrected as suggested.
Comments 18: Line 120- The use of 1 volumetric soil moisture sensor per plot is a weakness in the study as soil moisture can vary dramatically over short distances. Did the authors assess the variability in soil moisture at the plot scale?
Response 18: We revised the paragraph from Line 131 to Line 140 to accommodate reviewer’s comments.
Comments 19: Line 163 “Tb and Te (Figure 1)” should be “Tbb and Teb (Figure 1)”
Response 19: Corrected as suggested.
Comments 20: Line 195 The authors should provide additional details about their volume collection. “ Therefore, when runoff accumulated in the second and third pools, the runoff volume in the second pool was multiplied by 6 and runoff volume in the third pool was multiplied by 36, and then added to the runoff volume collected in the first pool, finally yielded the total runoff volume of the event.” Where does “6” and “36” come from?
Response 20: Corrected as suggested.
Comments 21: Figure 3- There is a lot of scatter in the data particularly for the 0-3 hour duration events are any of the trends shown significant?
Response 21: Due to revision, Figure 3 now becomes Figure 5. We added coefficients of determination (R2) to each trend as suggested. We also revised the discussion regarding the trends in Figure 5 as that shown from Line 317 to Line 331.
Comments 22: Figure 5- This seems to be a very subjective division of the data – Why doesn’t the solid line group include all the data below 0.15?
Response 22: Figure 5 now becomes Figure 7 because of the revision.
Data in Figure 7 actually show three distinct clusters: the solid-line cluster, the dashed-line cluster, and the ungrouped cluster. We chose to delineate our data was because each cluster possessed different characteristics.
The ungrouped cluster has two characteristics: (1). NAVSMC < 0.35 and (2). Soil loss/EI30 < 0.1. The reason for further delineating the remaining data into solid- and dashed-line groups is because both groups’ NAVSMC > 0.30 but reflect considerably different results in Soil Loss/EI30. Through further analysis, we found that rainfall conditions between the solid- and dashed-line groups were noticeably different, and these rainfall conditions suggested that we had to exclude the ungrouped data out of the solid-line group.
In summary, solid- and dashed-line groups reflect different soil erodibility under high antecedent soil moisture content, while the ungrouped data points reflect generally low soil erodibility under low antecedent soil moisture content.
For the sake of clarity, we add additional explanation to the text to address the rationale of data grouping as that shown from Line 340-363.
General comment 1 : The windrose plot is confusing can the authors present a clear explanation as to its usefulness?
Response: We change the plot presentation as that shown in Figure 6.
General comment 2: the authors should circle back and compare their results to those presented in the Introduction do their results fit with what has been published in the literature.
Response: We were unable to compare our results to those published in the literature because differences in climate, rainfall characteristics, and soil type.
General comment 3 : how might their results change with a different soil texture?
Response: We would like to elaborate our results to different soil texture by making an assumption that field experiment settings and particularly the rainfall conditions are identical. The elaboration will only be speculation. Therefore, we add suggestions of further research in the Conclusion section.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
After reviewing the revised manuscript I am satisfied that the authors have addressed the revisions suggested in my earlier review. I now recommend its publication in the journal after some relatively minor edits listed below.
Line 55 change “Basen” to “Based”
Line 173 change “downpour resulted” to “downpours resulting”
Line 226 Suggest revising “Soil loss from a runoff plot was detained in the first pool except the suspended load. Grab samples of detained sediment were taken from the first pool. Grab samples of sus- pended load were also taken from each pool.” To Soil loss was calculated from grab samples of detained sediment in the first pool and added to grab samples of suspended sediment collected from each pool.”
Line 230 change “by storm basis.” To “on a storm by storm basis”
Line 261 add “was” before “generated”
Line 325 change “scatter” to “scattered”.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Much improved over the original submission.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable feedback and time.
Comments 1: Line 55 change “Basen” to “Based”
Response 1 : Corrected as suggested.
Comments 2: Line 173 change “downpour resulted” to “downpours resulting”
Response 2 : Corrected as suggested.
Comments 3: Line 226 Suggest revising “Soil loss from a runoff plot was detained in the first pool except the suspended load. Grab samples of detained sediment were taken from the first pool. Grab samples of sus- pended load were also taken from each pool.” To Soil loss was calculated from grab samples of detained sediment in the first pool and added to grab samples of suspended sediment collected from each pool.”
Response 3 : Corrected as suggested.
Comments 4: Line 230 change “by storm basis.” To “on a storm by storm basis”
Response 4 : Corrected as suggested.
Comments 5: Line 261 add “was” before “generated”
Response 5 : Corrected as suggested.
Comments 6:Line 325 change “scatter” to “scattered”.
Response 6 : Corrected as suggested.
