Prediction of Soil Water Thresholds for Trees in the Semi-Arid Region on the Loess Plateau
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1.English language and style require be moderate revised.
2.Please check references carefully.
Author Response
- The English language has been revised. We thank LetPub (www.letpub.com) for its linguistic assistance during the preparation of this revised manuscript.
- The reference has been revised.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The abstract did not meet the format requirements of the journal.
2. The research on soil moisture threshold was not comprehensive.
3. There were a lot of abbreviations in the text, which should be explained in a table.
4. In my knowledge, the relationship between capillary break water and field capacity has become an accepted empirical coefficient. Then what was the innovation of this paper? However, the formula chosen to calculate the capillary breaking water is inconsistent at different bulk densities.
5. The determination of soil moisture threshold should be related to plant, climate, soil and other factors.
6. Line 144, the θFC should be θPWP.
7. As can be seen from Figure 1, the fitting degree of the curve was related to the selected paper data, so it was very important to select the scientific nature of the paper, and the article did not give a reasonable explanation.
Author Response
1 The abstract did not meet the format requirements of the journal.
Answer:
The abstract has been revised based on the format requirements of the journal.
- The research on soil moisture threshold was not comprehensive.
Answer:
A detailed calculation method of soil moisture threshold was added in the Materials and Methods section of the text. It is written in paragraph 2, on page 7.
- There were a lot of abbreviations in the text, which should be explained in a table.
Answer:
A list of abbreviations has been shown on page 7 in the text.
- In my knowledge, the relationship between capillary break water and field capacity has become an accepted empirical coefficient. Then what was the innovation of this paper? However, the formula chosen to calculate the capillary breaking water is inconsistent at different bulk densities.
Answer:
The third paragraph of the introduction part has been revised for a much clearer description of the innovation of this paper. The third paragraph of the introduction part: “As far as soil is concerned, the soil moisture threshold are often regarded as the capillary break water. The capillary break water is estimated empirically and approximately as 0.7-0.75 of field capacity. However, the soil moisture threshold is approximately 0.5-0.6 of field capacity for trees such as goldspur apple (Malus pumila cv. Goldspur), Salix matsudana and Forsythia suspense in semi-arid region on the Loess Plateau of north China. Therefore, the empirical coefficient 0.7-0.75 between field capacity and capillary break water may not be suitable for estimating soil moisture threshold of trees in this region. Thus, the innovation of this paper is to prppose an formula for capillary break water calculation to estimate accurately the θTHR of trees in semi-arid region on the Loess Plateau”.
The third paragraph of 10 page (in the results part) suggests that the formula proposed for estimating capillary break water in semi-arid region on the Loess Plateau in this study is more accuratry than empirical coefficient.
- The determination of soil moisture threshold should be related to plant, climate, soil and other factors.
Answer:
A new paragraph (Last paragraph of the discussion senction) has been added in the text to discussion this point. The main viewpoint as following: The results of this study shows that soil capillary break water is an major factor affecting the soil moisture threshold of trees in semi-arid region on the Loess Plateau. However, the soil moisture threshold is also affected by climate, vegetation and other factors. Thus, whether this method can be applied in other conditions such as arid regions and crops also needs further researches.
- Line 144, the θFC should be θ
Answer:
It has been corrected.
- As can be seen from Figure 1, the fitting degree of the curve was related to the selected paper data, so it was very important to select the scientific nature of the paper, and the article did not give a reasonable explanation.
Answer:
A new paragraph (Last paragraph of page 6) has been added in the Materials to explaine the reason why thses six literature were selected.
Reviewer 3 Report
I am writing the comments for the paper titled by “Prediction of soil-water thresholds for plant responses” (processes-1985167). The main result is that soil-water threshold values can be estimated from soil properties, thus avoiding time-consuming monitoring of actual plant performance across a range of soil water levels. This research can provide a practical guideline for agriculture water management. However, there are many drawbacks needing authors to address.
1. I reviewed the contents of this paper, and found that the title of this paper is not appropriate. Some regional information needs to be specified.
2. The authors have chosen 16 plants used in the models. Some of them are crops, while some are not. The reasons for this must be given.
3. The abstract needs improvements which current version is lacking of important details for the research methods or results.
4. The significance of this study was not clearly described.
5. It is totally unclear how these 6 papers were selected for testing the hypothesis. The author should explain why these 6 papers were selected.
6. Table1 and 2, the Latin name of maize and wheat should be used to keep consistent with other plants.
7. The author should comment on the scope of the soil bulk density range between 1.14 and 1.35 g cm-3 and field capacity range between 1.14 and 1.35 g cm-3. How inclusive are these two ranges for all soil types from clay to sand or your typical agricultural soil.
8. Fig.1. The convention would be to test whether the slope was significantly different from 1 and the intercept was significantly different from 0.
9. The first paragraph of the Discussion is not easy to follow. Importantly, I suggest the authors to enrich the discussion part, and reduce the repeat of results in this part.
Author Response
- I reviewed the contents of this paper, and found that the title of this paper is not appropriate. Some regional information needs to be specified.
Answer:
The title of this paper has been changed to “Prediction of soil-water thresholds for tree in the Semi-arid Region on the Loess Plateau”
- The authors have chosen 16 plants used in the models. Some of them are crops, while some are not. The reasons for this must be given.
Answer:
The title of this paper has been changed to “Prediction of soil-water thresholds for tree in Semi-arid Region on Loess Plateau”. Thus, crops of maize and wheat have been deleted in the paper.
- The abstract needs improvements which current version is lacking of important details for the research methods or results.
Answer:
The abstract has been revised based on the format requirements of the journal. Details for the research methods or results have been added in the revised abstract.
- The significance of this study was not clearly described.
Answer:
The third paragraph of the introduction part has been revised for a much clearer description of the significance of this study.
- It is totally unclear how these 6 papers were selected for testing the hypothesis. The author should explain why these 6 papers were selected.
Answer:
A new paragraph (Last paragraph of page 6) has been added in the Materials to explaine the reason why thses six literature were selected.
- Table1 and 2, the Latin name of maize and wheat should be used to keep consistent with other plants.
Answer:
The title of this paper has been changed to “Prediction of soil-water thresholds for tree in Semi-arid Region on Loess Plateau”. Thus, maize and wheat have been deleted in the paper.
- The author should comment on the scope of the soil bulk density range between 1.14 and 1.35 g cm-3 and field capacity range between 1.14 and 1.35 g cm-3. How inclusive are these two ranges for all soil types from clay to sand or your typical agricultural soil.
Answer:
A new paragraph (The second paragraph of the discussion part) has been added to discuss this point.
- Fig.1. The convention would be to test whether the slope was significantly different from 1 and the intercept was significantly different from 0.
Answer:
The test has been done again according to the suggestion of reviewers. It can be seen in Fig.1 and the last paragraph of page 8.
- The first paragraph of the Discussion is not easy to follow. Importantly, I suggest the authors to enrich the discussion part, and reduce the repeat of results in this part.
Answer:
“The first paragraph of the Discussion” in the origianl manuscript has been deleted. The discussion part has been enriched and the repeat of results in this part has also been deleted.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The introduction and discussion did not explain why the difference in the proportion of soil moisture threshold to the farmland in the Loess Plateau would occur, and the significance of limiting the research scope to the Loess Plateau. It is impossible to see the necessity of limiting the research scope of the paper to the trees in the Loess Plateau from the introduction and discussion.
2. At present, formula 1-11 should all be quoted from Literature 21. The contribution of this paper should be highlighted, and the basis of formula 12 to 14 should be clarified
3. In the discussion, additional data are needed to prove that the method is feasible in estimating plant soil moisture threshold on the Loess Plateau.
Author Response
- The introduction and discussion did not explain why the difference in the proportion of soil moisture threshold to the farmland in the Loess Plateau would occur, and the significance of limiting the research scope to the Loess Plateau. It is impossible to see the necessity of limiting the research scope of the paper to the trees in the Loess Plateau from the introduction and discussion.
Answer:
A new paragraph (The second paragraph of the discussion senction) has been added in the text to explain why the difference in the proportion of soil moisture threshold to the farmland in the Loess Plateau would occur.
A new paragraph (The fourth paragraph of the introduction senction) has been added in the text to suggest the necessity of limiting the research scope of the paper to the trees in the Loess Plateau.
- At present, formula 1-11 should all be quoted from Literature 21. The contribution of this paper should be highlighted, and the basis of formula 12 to 14 should be clarified.
Answer:
A new paragraph (line 106 to line 110) has been added in the text to clary the basis of formula 12 to 14.
Another new paragraph (line 117 to 118) has been added to highlight the contribution of this paper.
- In the discussion, additional data are needed to prove that the method is feasible in estimating plant soil moisture threshold on the Loess Plateau.
A data set including other seven soils representing major soils on the Loess Plateau was used to evaluate the feasibility of the method proposed in this study indirectly because there was no other direct experimental evidence. Thus, a new paragraph (The fourth paragraph of the discussion senction) was added in the text.
