Analysis of Runoff and Sediment Losses from a Sloped Roadbed under Variable Rainfall Intensities and Vegetation Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Autors, 

The article addresses important issues and is relevant from a scientific and practical point of view.
The text is well and clearly written. I recommend to publish after minor corrections.

1)
if the authors combine the results with the discussion - I am asking you to expand the discussion element.
I recommend referring to a few more references (from the introduction or additional).
I am generally in favor of separating the results from the discussion. It's easier to get the right proportions.
in the results: describe the data, ranges and relationships themselves, and in the discussion: include comparisons, attempts to draw conclusions.
Please either expand the discussion or separate from the results.

2) refine: Funding, Acknowledgments, Conflicts of Interest: "The authors declare no conflict of interest."

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

     Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Analysis of Runoff and Sediment from a Sloped Roadbed under Variable Rainfall Intensities and Vegetation Conditions” (ID: sustainability-703563). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We employed an English-language editing service Mogo Edit to polish our wording. Besides, our current manuscript followed the journal formatting guidelines of Ecological Indicators. Especially the figures and tables have been edited. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red throughout the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the Responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

NOTE: All the Page and Line numbers where revisions were made refer to the Manuscript and Highlight with marked changes (Manuscript (revised version).docx and Highlight (revised version).docx)). The Manuscript_Clean Version was the same version of the Manuscript (revised version) with cleaned from all the marks.

Responses to the Editor’s comments:

It has been reviewed by experts in the field and we request that you make major revisions before it is processed further.

    Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions to revise the manuscript. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. All the Page and Line numbers where revisions were made refer to the Manuscript with marked changes.

Responses to the Reviewer1#’s comments:

The article addresses important issues and is relevant from a scientific and practical point of view. The text is well and clearly written. I recommend to publish after minor corrections.

    Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions to revise the manuscript. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. All the Page and Line numbers where revisions were made refer to the Manuscript and Highlight with marked changes.

I recommend referring to a few more references (from the introduction or additional).

    Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We added new references in the introduction and in latest version manuscript.

I am generally in favor of separating the results from the discussion. It's easier to get the right proportions. in the results: describe the data, ranges and relationships themselves, and in the discussion: include comparisons, attempts to draw conclusions.

    Response: Thanks very much for your comment. We are generally in favor of combine the result with discussion. It is easy to read and understand. In addition, we added more discussion in latest version manuscript. (Page 4, Line 294-297; P5, Line 378-382; P6, Line 460-464; Line 474-478)

Please either expand the discussion or separate from the results.

    Response: Thank you very much for your comment. We were expended the discussion in latest version manuscript. (Page 4, Line 294-297; P5, Line 378-382; P6, Line 460-464; Line 474-478)

refine: Funding, Acknowledgments, Conflicts of Interest: "The authors declare no conflict of interest."

    Response: Thanks for your comment. We refine the Funding, Acknowledgments, Conflicts of Interest and the authors declare no conflict of interest in latest version manuscript. (Page 11, Line 714-717)

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments:

The manuscript sustainability-703563 evaluates the efficiency of different subgrade types on minimizing runoff and erosion from sloped roadbeds. Although this work is relevant not only for the construction sector but also for water and soil managers, major issues need to be tackled before publication.

 

In general, the manuscript is poorly written, so I would advise the authors for it to be reviewed by a native speaker. The Introduction needs to be improved as it does not provide an adequate background of the authors work; several studies are cited that are unrelated to the topic. The objectives must be clearly stated. The methodology is vague; there is lacking important information to understand the author’s work, especially regarding the experimental design and statistical analyses. The manuscript would substantially beneficiate of a detailed scheme of the experimental design with the location of the study area and the experimental plots within the slope. The Results are very descriptive and sometimes difficult to follow. The manuscript is also lacking an integrated discussion of the results. The conclusions are a just a summary of the results; I would suggest the authors to highlight only the most relevant findings and discuss their applicability and relevance for soil and water managers.

  

Based on my evaluation, I would therefore propose major revisions to the manuscript before acceptance to Sustainability.

 

Specific comments:

Please see the sustainability-703563-peer-review-v1-Specific comments.pdf file attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

     Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Analysis of Runoff and Sediment from a Sloped Roadbed under Variable Rainfall Intensities and Vegetation Conditions” (ID: sustainability-703563). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We employed an English-language editing service Mogo Edit to polish our wording. Besides, our current manuscript followed the journal formatting guidelines of Ecological Indicators. Especially the figures and tables have been edited. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red throughout the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the Responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

NOTE: All the Page and Line numbers where revisions were made refer to the Manuscript and Highlight with marked changes (Manuscript (revised version).docx and Highlight (revised version).docx)). The Manuscript_Clean Version was the same version of the Manuscript (revised version) with cleaned from all the marks.

Responses to the Editor’s comments:

It has been reviewed by experts in the field and we request that you make major revisions before it is processed further.

    Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions to revise the manuscript. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. All the Page and Line numbers where revisions were made refer to the Manuscript with marked changes.

Responses to the Reviewer2#’s comments:

General comments:

The manuscript sustainability-703563 evaluates the efficiency of different subgrade types on minimizing runoff and erosion from sloped roadbeds. Although this work is relevant not only for the construction sector but also for water and soil managers, major issues need to be tackled before publication.

    Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions to revise the manuscript. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. All the Page and Line numbers where revisions were made refer to the Manuscript and Highlight with marked changes.

In general, the manuscript is poorly written, so I would advise the authors for it to be reviewed by a native speaker.

   Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We revised the written of the manuscript. In addition, we employed an English-language editing service Mogo Edit to polish our wording.

The Introduction needs to be improved as it does not provide an adequate background of the authors work; several studies are cited that are unrelated to the topic.

   Response: Thanks very much for your valuable comment. We revised the introduction and added more background in the text, at the same time, we added more cited in latest version manuscript. (Page 1-2, Line 31-116)

The objectives must be clearly stated.

   Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We added the scientific hypothesis in the introduction of the latest version manuscript. (Page 2, Line 108-111)

The methodology is vague; there is lacking important information to understand the author’s work, especially regarding the experimental design and statistical analyses.

   Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We revised the methodology, experimental and added statistical analysis in the latest version manuscript. (Page 2, Line 119-122; Page 4, Line 279-284)

The manuscript would substantially beneficiate of a detailed scheme of the experimental design with the location of the study area and the experimental plots within the slope.

   Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. The observation sample plot was located in the subgraded section of Jianning Qi Railway in Nantong City, Jiangsu Province (31°53'42", 121°21'47"). The subgrade slope is 7.5 m high with a slope ratio of 1:1.5. The slope was 30°. We added the details in latest version manuscript. (Page 2, Line 119-124)

The Results are very descriptive and sometimes difficult to follow. The manuscript is also lacking an integrated discussion of the results. The conclusions are a just a summary of the results; I would suggest the authors to highlight only the most relevant findings and discuss their applicability and relevance for soil and water managers.

   Response: Thanks very much for your comment. We revised the result, discussion and summary in the manuscript. In addition, we added more cites to the discussion of latest version manuscript. (Page 4, Line 294-297; P5, Line 378-382; P6, Line 460-464; Line 474-478)

Based on my evaluation, I would therefore propose major revisions to the manuscript before acceptance to Sustainability.

    Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions to revise the manuscript. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. All the Page and Line numbers where revisions were made refer to the Manuscript with marked changes.

Specific comments: Please see the sustainability-703563-peer-review-v1-Specific comments.pdf file attached. peer-review-6168556.v1.pdf

    Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions to revise the manuscript. Most of the specific comments were about the language of text. We revised the written of latest version manuscript. In addition, we employed an English-language editing service Mogo Edit to polish our wording.

Reviewer 3 Report

The presented article compare three layout of roadbed slopes, namely grass, shrub-grass and bare soil. There were compared initial runoff times and amount of sediment after five rainfall intensities. Not surprisingly, vegetation covered slopes had higher initial runoff times as well as lower sediment. Differences between grass and shrub-grass slopes were small (non-significant?) In the meaning of novelty and scientific importance, main idea is not very significant, because non-stability and runoff vulnerability of bare slopes is common sense. 

The article has serious flaws in measurement and analysis of data. Obviously there is no replications. There is no mention about statistical analysis in the material and methods.  Statistics seems to be used improperly.  Use of discrete variable (type of coverage 1 or 0) in regression analysis is at least weird. 

According my opinion article contains errors which cannot be improved without additional analysis and thus I recommend to reject.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

     Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Analysis of Runoff and Sediment from a Sloped Roadbed under Variable Rainfall Intensities and Vegetation Conditions” (ID: sustainability-703563). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We employed an English-language editing service Mogo Edit to polish our wording. Besides, our current manuscript followed the journal formatting guidelines of Ecological Indicators. Especially the figures and tables have been edited. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red throughout the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the Responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

NOTE: All the Page and Line numbers where revisions were made refer to the Manuscript and Highlight with marked changes (Manuscript (revised version).docx and Highlight (revised version).docx)). The Manuscript_Clean Version was the same version of the Manuscript (revised version) with cleaned from all the marks.

Responses to the Editor’s comments:

It has been reviewed by experts in the field and we request that you make major revisions before it is processed further.

    Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions to revise the manuscript. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. All the Page and Line numbers where revisions were made refer to the Manuscript with marked changes.

Responses to the Reviewer3#’s comments:

The presented article compare three layout of roadbed slopes, namely grass, shrub-grass and bare soil. There were compared initial runoff times and amount of sediment after five rainfall intensities. Not surprisingly, vegetation covered slopes had higher initial runoff times as well as lower sediment.

    Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions to revise the manuscript. Most of the specific comments were about the language of text. We revised the written of the manuscript. In addition, we employed an English-language editing service Mogo Edit to polish our wording.

Differences between grass and shrub-grass slopes were small (non-significant?) In the meaning of novelty and scientific importance, main idea is not very significant, because non-stability and runoff vulnerability of bare slopes is common sense. 

     Response: Thanks very much for your comment. The objectives of this study were to: (i) explore the law of runoff and sediment yield under different rainfall intensities, and; ii) evaluate which types of planting and vegetation allocation has the best soil and water conservation benefits. Compared with a bare slope, the law of influence on the runoff generation time and the effect of reducing runoff and sediment on the slope surface were obtained. This contrast provides a theoretical reference for further exploring the regulation and control ability of subgrade slope vegetation on runoff and sediment erosion rates, and reasonable planning slope greening measures that are both effective in highway or railway construction and improve the quality of the environment. (Page 2, Line 108-116)

The article has serious flaws in measurement and analysis of data.

Response: Thanks for your comment. We revised analysis of data in the latest version manuscript.

Obviously there is no replications.

    Response: Thanks very much for your comment. The plot was made of three square concrete frames of railway subgrade and a total of nine plots were selected for this study. We added these details in latest version manuscript (P2, Line 121-122).

There is no mention about statistical analysis in the material and methods. 

    Response: Thank you very much for your comment. We added the statistical analysis in the material and methods of the latest version manuscript (P4, Line 279-284).

Statistics seems to be used improperly.  Use of discrete variable (type of coverage 1 or 0) in regression analysis is at least weird. 

Response: Thanks for your comment. We revised statistics of the latest version manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments:

Although the English has been improved in this new version of the manuscript, the contents itself have not. Most of the issues that I have highlighted in my previous revision, especially those related to the experimental design, results, discussion and conclusions, seem to have been overlooked by the authors. In fact, most of my suggestions, in particular the ones made in the Specific comments file, seem to have been ignored. For these reasons, I must again propose major revisions to the manuscript.

For the next time, I would advise the authors to take into account the comments that I have made in my first revision (see file attached). I would also recommend the authors to submit a point-by-point response to all my comments, not only to facilitate the revision process but also to clarify the doubts I have regarding the methodology, which is determinant for the acceptance of the manuscript.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

     Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Analysis of Runoff and Sediment from a Sloped Roadbed under Variable Rainfall Intensities and Vegetation Conditions” (ID: sustainability-703563). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. Our current manuscript followed the journal formatting guidelines of Ecological Indicators. Especially the figures and tables have been edited. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red throughout the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the Responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

NOTE: All the Page and Line numbers where revisions were made refer to the Manuscript and Highlight with marked changes (Manuscript (revised version).docx and Highlight (revised version).docx)). The Manuscript_Clean Version was the same version of the Manuscript (revised version) with cleaned from all the marks.

Responses to the Editor’s comments:

• It has been reviewed by experts in the field and we request that you make major revisions before it is processed further.

    Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions to revise the manuscript. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. All the Page and Line numbers where revisions were made refer to the Manuscript with marked changes.

Responses to the Reviewer2#’s comments:

General comments:

• Although the English has been improved in this new version of the manuscript, the contents itself have not. Most of the issues that I have highlighted in my previous revision, especially those related to the experimental design, results, discussion and conclusions, seem to have been overlooked by the authors. In fact, most of my suggestions, in particular the ones made in the Specific comments file, seem to have been ignored. For these reasons, I must again propose major revisions to the manuscript. For the next time, I would advise the authors to take into account the comments that I have made in my first revision (see file attached). I would also recommend the authors to submit a point-by-point response to all my comments, not only to facilitate the revision process but also to clarify the doubts I have regarding the methodology, which is determinant for the acceptance of the manuscript.  

    Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions to revise the manuscript.    We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. All the Page and Line numbers where revisions were made refer to the Manuscript and Highlight with marked changes.

Specific comments

• L15, This is a repetition of the previous sentence. I would suggest eliminating this sentence.

    Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We have deleted this sentence in latest version manuscript. (Page 1, Line 15)

• L19, I would suggest using the term "runoff generation time" here and elsewhere in the manuscript.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We unified the term “runoff generation time” in latest version manuscript.

• L24 I believe these values should be presented by unit area.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We added the unit area of “662.66g/400m²” in latest version manuscript. (Page 1, Line 23)

• L24 This is not very relevant to the reader, so I would suggest removing this sentence, also to give some continuity to the previous sentence.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We removed the sentence and improved the language in latest version manuscript. (Page 1, Line 24)

• L27 These values are almost irrelevant. I would just mentioning that the treatment effect on erosion was minimal.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. Because the area in this plot was small and we added the unit in the values of the latest version manuscript. (Page 1, Line 25)

• L29 I would suggest the authors to end the abstract with a sentence that shows the relevance of their work and its applicability.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We added a sentence in the latest version manuscript. (Page 1, Line 29)

• L30 The keywords should be different from the words used in the title.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We revised the keywords in latest version manuscript. (Page 1, Line 30)

• L51 What is the common name of this species. Please include it between brackets.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We added the name in latest version manuscript. (Page 2, Line 64)

• L51 Please include references here.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We added the reference in latest version manuscript. (Page2, Line 65)

• L53 What is red leaf stone? A plant? If so, please include the name of the species between brackets. The syntax of this sentence is poor. Please rephrase.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. It is plant and we added the name of plant in in latest version manuscript (Page 2, Line 65)

• L54 Please include the name of the species between brackets.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We added the name of plant in in latest version manuscript (Page 2, Line 67)

• L57 This sentence is confusing. Please rephrase.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We rephrased the sentence in latest version manuscript. (Page 2, Line 71)

• L60 These works seem unrelated to the author's work. Either rephrase the sentence or remove it.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We rephrased the sentence in latest version manuscript. (Page 2, Line 74)

• L61 This part of the sentence is unclear to the reader.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We rephrased the sentence in latest version manuscript. (Page 2, Line 80)

• L67 The objectives of this work are not well defined. Please be clear and concise.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We revised the objectives of this paper make it more clearly and concisely in latest version manuscript. (Page 2, Line 84)

• L71 This sentence is unclear.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We rephrased the sentence in latest version manuscript. (Page 2, Line 87)

• L79 Too many nouns. Please simplify.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We rephrased the sentence in latest version manuscript. (Page 2, Line 93)

• L80 Clearly indicated the location of the subgrade slope on Figure 1.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We added the location of the subgrade slope on Figure 1 of latest version manuscript. (Page 3, Line 142)

• L82 Please indicate the location of these tanks on Figure 1.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We added the location of the tanks on Figure 1 of latest version manuscript. (Page 3, Line 142)

• L86 Figure 1 must be improved; it is difficult to understand the experimental design because most of the things described in the text are not represented on this figure.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We added the location of the tanks on Figure 1 of latest version manuscript. (Page 3, Line 142)

• L87 These are results. Please remove this sentence from the material and methods section.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We remove this sentence from the material and methods section to results in latest version manuscript. (Page 3, Line 143)

• L98 What type of soil is this? Please indicate the classification according to FAO.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We revised the type of soil in latest version manuscript. (Page 3, Line 145)

• L104 Either present a figure or a table, because the information presented on Figure 3 and Table 1 is basically the same.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We deleted the Table 1 in latest version manuscript. (Page 3, Line 150)

• L107 This is confusing. Please clearly specify the plant species on the grass slope and then on the shrub grass slope.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. There were shrub-grass, grass and bore slope in plot, respectively. We rephrased the sentence in latest version manuscript. (Page 3, Line 155)

• L111 Please show a diagram with this part of the experimental design to improve the reader's understanding.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We remove the diagram in this part of the latest version manuscript. (Page 3, Line 159)

• L114 I would suggest naming this sub-section as "Experimental design".

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We revised it to "Experimental design" in the latest version manuscript. (Page 3, Line 162)

• L116 This says very little. Please be clear and concise.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We rephrased the sentence in latest version manuscript. (Page 4, Line 228)

• L119 This sentence is extremely difficult to follow. Please improve.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We improved the sentence in latest version manuscript. (Page 4, Line 236)

• L125 What do the authors mean with rainfall fields?

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We revised in latest version manuscript. (Page 4 Line 231)

• L127 Were there replicate plots?

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We added this part in latest version manuscript. (Page 4, Line 232)

• L130 Which specifications? Please be clear.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We improved the specifications in latest version manuscript. (Page 4, Line 238)

• L138 I would advise the authors to use the same terminology regarding the treatments throughout the text. As an example, either use slope or subgrade type, to facilitate the reader's understanding.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We unified the term “subgrade type” in latest version manuscript. (Page 4, Line 250)

• L148 Runoff generation time

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We unified the term “Runoff generation time” in latest version manuscript. (Page 4, Line 252)

• L151 This is too descriptive. Please simplify this sentence.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We improved the sentence in latest version manuscript. (Page 4, Line 257)

• L157 What are the authors referring to?

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We were referring to “Standard runoff plot” and we added this in latest version manuscript. (Page 4, Line 266)

• L161 The table caption must be improved. Please clearly state which statistical test was used.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We improved the sentence and added statistical test in latest version manuscript. (Page 5, Line 342)

• L171 Please change the title of the sub-section. I would suggest " Total runoff "

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We revised it to “Total runoff” in latest version manuscript. (Page 6, Line 371)

• L178 It is not clear what the authors want to highlight.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We improved the sentence in latest version manuscript. (Page 6, Line 388)

• L181 Rainfall intensity

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We revised it to “Rainfall intensity” sentence in latest version manuscript. (Page 7, Line 386)

• L183 This is too descriptive. Please highlight only the most relevant results.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We improved the sentence in latest version manuscript. (Page7, Line 392)

• L189 Please clearly indicate the statistical test used.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We added the statistical method in latest version manuscript. (Page 7, Line 413)

• L198 Table 5 is not presented in the manuscript. Please check if all tables and figures mentioned in the text are presented in the manuscript.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We added the table in latest version manuscript. (Page 7, Line 431)

• L206 This structure of this sentence is poor. Please improve it.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We improved the sentence in latest version manuscript. (Page 7, Line 439)

• L210 This sentence is confusing. Please improve it.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We improved the sentence in latest version manuscript. (Page 7, Line 440)

• L215 I would suggest changing the title of this sub-section to "Sediment yield".

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We changed the title of this sub-section to "Sediment yield" in the sentence of the latest version manuscript. (Page 7, Line 433)

• L219 Please include the p-value here.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We added the p-value in the latest version manuscript. (Page 7, Line 440)

• L223 This sentence is out of context. Please remove it.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We removed the sentence of the latest version manuscript. (Page 7, Line 441)

• L224 Sediment yield

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We changed the title of this sub-section to "Sediment yield" in the sentence of the latest version manuscript. (Page 8, Line 517)

• L227 I believe this value should be expressed by unit of area.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We added the unit of area in the latest version manuscript. (Page 8, Line 520)

• L233 This is a repetition of what is said above. Please eliminate this sentence.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We eliminate this sentence in the latest version manuscript. (Page 8, Line 523)

• L235 This title does not reflect the contents of the sub-section. Please improve.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We improved the sentence in latest version manuscript. (Page 8, Line 525)

• L236 Please improve this sentence. This is unclear.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We improved the sentence in latest version manuscript. (Page 8, Line 531)

• L240 What do the authors mean by ideal? Please be clear.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We revised the sentence in latest version manuscript. (Page 8, Line 529)

• L266 This part of the sentence does not make sense.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We revised the sentence in latest version manuscript. (Page 9, Line 650)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Statistics is not properly used. Authors declare 3 replications but in table 3 are still only 15 cases (calculated from df). Please reanalyze data including replications. Use two factor model with interactions. If interactions is not significant, declare it. 

Remove surface type from regression, this variable is not used properly. Make  separate regressions instead. Remove table 6 as it is useless. Divide figure 6 into 3 separate figures plot means on it and in each figure add regression lines for each surface type.  Add 95% confidential intervals to each  regression line and place regression equations and corresponding R2s into each figure.

Author Response

Responses to the Reviewer3#’s comments:

• Statistics is not properly used. Authors declare 3 replications but in table 3 are still only 15 cases (calculated from df). Please reanalyze data including replications. Use two factor model with interactions. If interactions is not significant, declare it. 

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. There were 3 replications in this paper and we revised the sentence in latest version manuscript. (Page 7, Line 413)

• Remove surface type from regression, this variable is not used properly. Make separate regressions instead.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We removed surface type from regression in latest version manuscript. (Page 8, Line 534)

• Remove table 6 as it is useless. 

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We removed the table 6 in latest version manuscript. (Page 8, Line 551)

• Divide figure 6 into 3 separate figures plot means on it and in each figure add regression lines for each surface type.  Add 95% confidential intervals to each regression line and place regression equations and corresponding R2s into each figure.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We divide figure 6 into 3 separate figures and added R² et al. in latest version manuscript. (Page 8, Line 516)

 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors for addressing most of my comments. The manuscript has been improved, but there are still some details regarding the methodology that are not clear. First, it is not clear if the authors have divided the subgraded slope into 9 plots (3 per treatment) or if they have installed 1 plot and divided it into 9 sections (3 per treatment). Second, the statistical analyses seem to have been incorrectly performed, because in Table 3 the authors have 4 degrees of freedom when they are only testing 3 treatments. Finally, when looking at the sediment yield per unit area (i.e. per square meter), the values seem negligible so the relevance of this work is questionable. The authors would have to compare their erosion results with other studies, but this is not done in the manuscript. I understand that the authors are testing the effectiveness of different treatments, but their results are only relevant if there is a real problem in terms of soil conservation in sloped roadbeds.

Aside from these major issues there also minor issues that need to be addressed before acceptance. Please see the sustainability-703563-peer-review-v3_Specific comments.pdf file attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to the Reviewer2#’s comments:

• I would like to thank the authors for addressing most of my comments. The manuscript has been improved, but there are still some details regarding the methodology that are not clear.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions to revise the manuscript. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. All the Page and Line numbers where revisions were made refer to the Manuscript with marked changes.

• First, it is not clear if the authors have divided the subgraded slope into 9 plots (3 per treatment) or if they have installed 1 plot and divided it into 9 sections (3 per treatment).

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We divided the subgraded slope into 9 plots (3 per treatment) and we revised it in the latest manuscript (Page 3, Line 99-100).

• Second, the statistical analyses seem to have been incorrectly performed, because in Table 3 the authors have 4 degrees of freedom when they are only testing 3 treatments.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We were very sorry the mistake. There were 9 plots and 3 treatments in the study. And the degrees of freedom should be 4 and we revised it in the latest manuscript (Page 7, Line 218).

• Finally, when looking at the sediment yield per unit area (i.e. per square meter), the values seem negligible so the relevance of this work is questionable.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We were very sorry the mistake. The unit area was m². This data is still very well and we think it cannot be ignored. We revised it in the latest manuscript (Page 1, Line 23 and 25).

• The authors would have to compare their erosion results with other studies, but this is not done in the manuscript. I understand that the authors are testing the effectiveness of different treatments, but their results are only relevant if there is a real problem in terms of soil conservation in sloped roadbeds.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We explained the results and some other people's studies are compared in the latest manuscript.

• Aside from these major issues there also minor issues that need to be addressed before acceptance. Please see the sustainability-703563-peer-review-v3_Specific comments.pdf file attached.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised the issues in this time according the attachment.

Thank you very much again for your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

My comments were addressed, so article may be published

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.