Erosion and Sediment Transport Modeling: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is interesting for selecting and understanding an appropriate model type.

 

1. The main findings of the review were not well stated in the abstract section. Model recommendation based on spatial consideration, catchment scale, data requirement, model character to apply and other parameters should be used to recommend model selection.

 

2. State the relationship and difference between erosion models and sediment transport modeling in the introduction section.

 

3. Why the review considers from 1990 to 2022? Why is it, not 1980? Others years.

 

4. Erosion models and sediment transport models are mixed in Table 1. Which sediment models are recommended for data scarcity areas based on your review? 

 

5. Which erosion models or sediment models recommend for gully erosion?

 

6. How to select and recommend the model performance using similar data input.

 

7. Table 4 states model types but some model types are not known. So, how to evaluate these models without understanding the types?

 

8. Which model types are currently used in many parts of the country?

 

9. Paper review limitations and future study recommendations are vital after reviewing works.

Some minor grammar revisions are also required

Author Response

The authors acknowledge the reviewer for his constructive and generous feedbacks for the improvement of the manuscript. In the revised manuscript we have addressed all the suggestions forwarded to our manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The present study presents a concise and objective review of water erosion and sediment transport models. The study shows variations in terms of time and domain scale, type and design, allowing to a wide public to have subsidies to choose the most appropriate model given the initial conditions. 

I believe that this paper is ready for publication at Land. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer we highly acknowledge your time and consideration of this manuscript.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

your review is very interesting and generally well-written.

I have only a few minor comments, which are summarized in the attachment. I hope that those comments will help you in further developing your reserach.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The language is ok. Maybe sometimes the term "review" can be replaced by another word to avoid repetitions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We gratefully acknowledge your constructive feedback on this manuscript. We used your insightful and line-by-line suggestions to make all revisions to the revised manuscript. We also appreciate your suggestions to read and incorporate other relevant literatures, which we have included in the revised manuscript.