Retrospective Modeling of a Large Paleo-Landslide Related to Deglaciation in the Sierra de Urbión, Cordillera Ibérica, Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Modelling palaeolandslides triggered by deglaciation processes is an important task, and the contributions to this knowledge should be welcomed. The reviewed manuscript is an example of local, but internationally-important study representing state-of-the-art interpretation of a representative example of palaeolandslide found in Spain. It also involves interesting modelling approach. Generally, I like this paper and think it should be accepted. I outline some recommendations below, and my main requirement is to bring the writing in order in regard to terminology, language, phrasing, style, and punctuation.

• Abstract: please, indicate the general location of your study area and state briefly the international importance of this study.
• Key words: Deglatation -> Deglaciation?
• Usually, site description precedes methodology. So, I propose to put your third section to the second place and your second section to the third place.
• I think moraine deposits need to be described in more systematic way (some descriptions occur, but I cannot understand whether these refer to ALL moraines mentioned in this study). May be to compose a table summarizing the occurrence and the basic sedimentological peculiarities of the moraines from the study site?
• Lines 162 and 199: are these really blocks (particles >1 m in size)? Please, refer to the modern sedimentological nomenclature - e.g., see these three works (probably, you have to put remarks on the chosen terminology and to cite these classifications in the methodological section):

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/10/2/51

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260949962_Megaclasts_Proposed_Revised_Nomenclature_At_the_Coarse_End_of_the_Udden-Wentworth_Grain-Size_Scale_for_Sedimentary_Particles

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270168746_Grain-size_and_textural_classification_of_coarse_sedimentary_particles

• Line 254: you mention an important geoconservation issue! Please, address to this with attention (and some references) in Discussion. This would make your work even more interesting!
• Conclusions: Please, give a numbered list of your 3-5 main findings.
• Please, pay attention to terminology. For instance, Lines 13, 134, 217 (check other places too): Purbeck and Weald are too archaic terms; now, these can be employed with so limitations in England, but not in Spain! Line 219: Marin -> Marine, Line 220: Triasic -> Triassic. Fig. 1 caption: why some rocks are assigned to lithostratigraphic units like the Oncala Gp, some are assigned to ages like the Paleozoic, and some are linked to depositional environments like the Marine Jurassic. Please, be consistent!
• Please, pay attention to details. For instance, Spanish words (like leyenda and geologia) occur on the figures (and the label 'Legend' is unnecessary). I see word spelling and phrasing inherited from Spanish in many places – please, polish your writing! Additionally, I see unnecessary word capitalizations and numerous unnecessary en-dashes.
• The writing needs significant improvements, particularly, in regard to language, phrasing, and style. I think a help of any English native speaker would help.

Author Response

Thanks to the reviewer for the suggestions and comments to improve the article. They have been incorporated into the manuscript, where all the modifications made have been underlined in yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1.- Recommendation: 
Accept with minor revisions

2.- The title is clear and specific and responds to the content of the article.
El título es claro y concreto y responde al contenido del artículo

3.- The article focuses on the proposed topic
El artículo se centra en el objetivo propuesto

4.- The methodology followed seems to be correct.

5.- The work includes enough data and sufficient graphics.

6.- All images used in the article appear to be of good quality.
Todas las imágenes utilizadas en el artículo parecen tener buena calidad.

7.- Los resultados se presentan de forma ordenada y clara. No parece que se hayan ocultado los resultados inesperados, ni los resultados menos favorables.
The results are presented in an orderly and clear manner. The unexpected results do not appear to have been hidden, nor the less favorable results.

8.- Las conclusiones son prudentes y concretas and offer good expectations for future research.
The conclusions are cautious, concrete and offer good expectations for future research.

9.- In my own opinion there is no important deficiencies in the text. And the data are concordant with the conclusions.

10.- I have no suspicion of plagiarism.

11.-The analysis of the case is valid. It contributes to the knowledge of the risks associated with recent processes and corroborates the effectiveness of the classical methodological analysis.
El análisis del caso es válido. Aporta al conocimiento de los peligros asociados a procesos recientes y corrobora la eficacia del análisis metodológico clásico.

12.- Reviewer Comments to Author

12.1- Activate the links that are included in the list of bibliographic references (cf. links to DOI and Google Scholar)
Activar los enlaces que se incluyen en la lista de referencias bibliográficas (cfr. enlaces al DOI y a Google Scholar) 

12.2.- Homogenize the style of bibliographic references. Always indicate the DOI and Google Scholar reference in the same style.
Homogeneizar el estilo de las referencias bibliográficas. Indicar siempre con el mismo estilo la referencia del DOI y de Google Scholar.

12.3.- The work requires a calm revision of the text. there are many words throughout the document that are hyphenated and that need to be corrected, see: line 3,12, ... 592, etc.
El trabajo requiere una revisión sosegada del texto. hay muchas palabras a lo largo del documento que se encuentran partidas por guiones que deben ser corregidas, p.e.: ver línea 3,12,... 592, etc.

12.4.- The Citation are wrong. The errors in the names of the authors must be corrected.
The Citation están mal. Hay que corregir las erratas que presentan los nombres de los autores.

12.5.- Tabla 2. It is convenient to indicate at the bottom of the table the page, the figure or the table of the cited manual (44). It should be noted that universal values ​​are used and that they have not been obtained by geotechnical tests in the study area.
Tabla 2. Es conveniente indicar en el pie de la tabla la pag, la figura o la tabla del manual citado (44). Hay que dejar constancia de que se manejan valores universales y que no se han obtenido por ensayos geotécnicos en la zona de estudio.

12.6.- Figure 9. The colors used in the legend to represent lithotypes 21, 22 and 23 do not correspond to the colors used in the profiles.
Figura 9. Los colores utilizados en la leyenda para representar los litotipos 21, 22 y 23 no se corresponden con los colores utilizados en los perfiles.

12.6.- It is convenient to indicate in Figure 9 the location of the evolutionary profile 0 to 3.
Conviene indicar en la Figura 9 la localización del perfil evolutivo 0 a 3.

12.7.- Conclusion: A paragraph should be added that summarizes the geomorphological history of the landslide studied.
Conclusión:  Conviene añadir un párrafo que resuma la historia geomorfológica del deslizamiento estudiado.

13.- For all these reasons, my recommendation is positive. The paper can be accepted with minor revisions.

 

Author Response

Thanks to the reviewer for the suggestions and comments to improve the article. They have been incorporated into the manuscript, where all the modifications made have been underlined in yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments to the Authors:

In the manuscript titled "Retrospective modeling of a large paleo-landslide related to deglaciation in the Sierra de Urbion, Cordillera Iberica, Spain”, the authors discuss a case-study regarding the reconstruction of the mechanism of formation of a large paleo-landslide induced by the retreat of the glacier during the last glacial cycle. The study area is located close to the Picos de Urbión in northern Spain. The research was based mainly on geological and geomorphological field investigations, coupled by laboratory tests to characterize the geomechanical properties of the rock mass. A reconstruction of the 3D slope model before the landslide event was make as well. Finally, a study of the stability condition of the 3D slope model was performed through the software FLAC 3D.

In my opinion, the manuscript in this current form cannot be published in the Applied Sciences Journal and there are some issues to be worked out. Thus, I retain that the manuscript needs a major Revision.

The main criticism of the manuscript consists that the research regards a very local study using not innovative methodologies buth only well know methods. Thus, it is not clear what is the new contribution of this research to the knowledge of the international scientific community. Furthermore, in the Discussion section, the authors should explain the limits of the adopted approach, which are its strengths and weaknesses and to emphasize what is new in their research and what is already known to the international scientific community.

 

[Minor items]

1. The English form needs a major editing to bring it up to publication standards. The grammatical form needs a strong improvement in several parts. In this version the manuscript results difficult to read and to understand in many passages.
2. Please check the words highlighted in yellow color in the manuscript.
3. The quality of the figure 1 is very poor and some mountain names are unreadable.
4. In the legend of Figure 2 there are not English words (e.g., Leyenda and Geologia).
5. Please, in the Figure 3 change 1, 2, 3, 4 with a, b, c, d. Furthermore, in the figure 3 there are words in Spanish language, please change them with English words.
6. Several suggestions are reported close to the figures within the text, see my notes in attached file.
7. In my opinion the section conclusion should be rewrite, because in this form it is not shows the achieved results.
8. Other minor comments are shown in the attached file

 

I wish that my notes can be useful to the authors to improve their manuscript and to bring it up to publication standards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks to the reviewer for the suggestions and comments to improve the article. They have been incorporated into the manuscript, where all the modifications made have been underlined in yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The present version of the manuscript is improved, so I retain that the manuscript, in the present form, can be considered for publication