Research on Spatial Distribution Pattern of Stability Inter-Controlled Factors of Fine-Grained Sediments in Debris Flow Gullies—A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract must be a separate section. It should be avoided to repeat the same sentences in the manuscript.

Introduction section should be expanded and avoid giving 10 or more references in only one sentence. Findings of the researchers may mentioned in detail.

Research question is not clear.

Robustness of the methodology requires justification more.

One cannot find more detail given in the fig 2 in results section. Spatial distribution and disaster risk analysis are not discussed efficiently.

In a well-written manuscript, discussion section must be separated section from results.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

We have revised our manuscript and highlighted the changes using the track changes mode in MS Word.

To show line numbers correct, please see the file by “Simple Mark View” mode on the Review board/menu in MS Word.

Please see our responses are in the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "A Research on the Spatial Distribution Pattern for Stability Inter-Controlled Factors of Fine-Grained Sediments in Debris Flow Gullies -- A Case from the Beichuan Debris Flow 4 Gully, China" is good case study by the authors. It will help to understand the phenomenon behind the danger of debris flow. 

However, the manuscript needs detailed revision. I have following suggestions/queries: 

1) The title is too long. Could it be reduced? My suggestion "Research on Spatial distribution pattern of stability inter-controlled factors of fine grained sediments in debris flow gullies - A case study". The location details can be given in Abstract. 

2) Abstract needs to be shortened indicating the methodology and quantitative results. Avoid introductory sentences which are already mentioned in Introduction. 

3) Lines 36-38 and 54-56 are repeated both in abstract and introduction. 

4) Starting sentences in lines 40, 46 and 50 have no meaning. They need to be connected with the following sentences. 

5) One small paragraph on inter-controlling of parameters will assist the readers to understand the results and behavior of rivers. 

6) What is the length of stretch between SP01 to SP15? What is the riven longitudinal slope? What is the general flow velocity? They are required to understand the spatial variation of sediment gradation and debris formation. How about the effect of tributories in the study area? Whether the effect is included?

7) Lines 85-92, mention certain historical events that occurred in the study area that initiated the present study.

8) Line 100, indicate the number of samples at each location, their frequency, methodology of sampling. Whether sampling is taken before or after any event? 

9) How porosity is measured, in-situ or laboratory? 

10) Why the Figures 3-6 and 7 are different? I all these figures, the curve alone has no significance. Along with that overlap Box-Whisker plot that will hive the in-site of the data. 

11) At all locations the soil is silty-loam. What is the USCS classification of soil? Is it same at all 15 locations or varying? 

12) Line 185, authors mention that the location SP01-SP05 has "has the characteristics of low permeability coefficient, low effective internal friction angle, and high cohesion due to erosion" How this can be concluded. The spatial variation of sediment size depends not only on erosion due to flow, the tributory effect, hilly region and many more.. Please justify. 

13) How about meandering effect in the study? Between what locations, whether it is considered? Shall be included in the discussion.

14) Photographs in Figures 8-10 needs more clarity about grain size. Provide zoomed images. 

15) Results and Discussion section needs to be revisited. 

16) Conclusions shall be crisp. This section has become discussion type. Please re-edit the same. 

17) No discussion is presented on " relationship between the stability inter- controlled factors of fine-grained sediments and the outbreak of debris flow disasters is discussed". 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper needs revision

Author Response

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

We have revised our manuscript and highlighted the changes using the track changes mode in MS Word.

To show line numbers correct, please see the file by “Simple Mark View” mode on the Review board/menu in MS Word.

Please see our responses in the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      Line 75: In Figure 1, the study area is located near Laobeichuan County, Sichuan Province, China. However, it is difficult to understand the study area in China. It is necessary to show a map for the Sichuan Province and Laobeichuan County in order to help readers realizing the location.

2.      Line 94: Where is the sampling point SP15 in Figure 1? It didn’t show out the number. Please check it again.

3.      Line 178: The average cohesion of the sediments is highest at SP 1, following by SP 14 in Figure 5. Is it correct? Why average cohesions at both sampling points are so high? Please check again.

4.      Line 198: The grain size of the sediments at SP 11 and SP 14 in Figure 3 are coarse grain which are larger than other sampling points. It is necessary to explain these special characteristics.

5.      Line 230: In downstream, the average permeability coefficient of the sediments is 1.51m/d, belonging to the medium permeability soil. It is interesting that grain size of the sediments at SP 11 and SP 14 are coarse grain, but the permeability coefficient is highest at SP 11; while it is lower at SP 14 in Figure 4. Why? What is the relationship between grain size and permeability coefficient for SP 11 and SP 14?

6.      Line 234: The average internal friction angle is decreasing in the downstream. However, it is high internal friction angle at SP15. There is a significant difference. Please explain this difference.

7.      Line 253: Based on the 200 soil samples, it is better to summarize the relationship between grain size, permeability coefficient, and shear strength through statistic analysis.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

We have revised our manuscript and highlighted the changes using the track changes mode in MS Word.

To show line numbers correct, please see the file by “Simple Mark View” mode on the Review board/menu in MS Word.

Please see our responses in the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors pointed out issues which reviewer recommended.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All queries are addressed and incorporated. I accept the manuscript.