Tile Drainage Flow Partitioning and Phosphorus Export in Vermont USA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Ruggiero et al. have produced a nice study into the link between phosphorus runoff via tile drainage and rainfall for a site in Vermont. The work has been done to a good standard and is presented clearly. Subject to three minor changes the work is needed. These changes are: 1) link the work more explicitly to wider issues within the topic (beyond Vermont); 2) improve the image resolution of the figures and ensure the tables are not images; and 3) shorten the conclusion by moving much of the current content into the discussion and providing a new succinct conclusion.

My sectional feedback is below – I thought the standard was high enough for me not to ask for line by line changes.

Introduction reads very clearly introducing the topic well, clearly and succinctly.

The study site description is thorough and clearly but could benefit from tying into why this particular areas was chosen. In essence I’m asking does this site in Vermont provide value for those in other areas of the world? Are there aspects of the geography which are transferable to other areas?

Analytical techniques are entirely appropriate to the study conducted.

Table 2 and 3 have been screenshotted – this should be text not an image.

Figs 1, 2 and 3 seem to be at low resolution could a higher resolution (300 dpi) be provided. In figure 1 it would be good to highlight that the jitter is for plotting purposes only and does not represent anything in time.

The conclusion is long. I feel much of this content would be better in the discussion rather than the conclusion. This would leave space for a succinct conclusion tying back to both the key findings and wider significance. I would also recommend avoiding initialisation in the conclusion as it makes it easier to read.

References are of good quality and up to date.

Author Response

Thank you for the review, please find our response in the document attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article describes the results of an experimental set-up for measuring Phosphorus transport through Tile Drainage flow into surface waters with a high temporal resolution approach. The experimental set up is very ambitious and Data analysis and evaluation was done timely and with different methods.

The results were described in detail. For scientists interested in land management if would be good, if a paragraph can be added in which the findings are discussed why and how this knowledge improves management and how this knowledge can contribute to get lower P loads.

For me it would be fine, if the sample fields are characterized with more details; e.g. P-content of the sol. In Europe, most soils are saturated with P and effect of fertilization are not measurable; because the P continent in the soil is too high.

Author Response

Thank you for the review, please find our response in the document attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors use too many abbreviations in the manuscript, making the experiment description challenging to understand. Please work on the description of the methodology as it is very complex in its present form. I also suggest adding a description of all abbreviations used by the authors at the beginning of the manuscript. In my opinion, the article should be extensively rewritten to make it more understandable. Currently, too many abbreviations and language used in the article make it difficult to understand.

In the abstract, if you give the place of research (Vermont), please also add the country's name. This will be easier to understand for a foreign reader.

The introduction lacks a clearly defined testable hypothesis that the authors examined in the paper. Please add this information. Also, I think the introduction chapter should be expanded with more information on the preferential flow path (PFP).

In line 95, you use the abbreviation AHS for the first time. Please explain to your readers what it means.

In the manuscript, it is necessary to add a map or a scheme showing the study area with all the research infrastructure. As it stands, it is not easy to understand how the experiment was designed. Moreover, a map with the location of the study area in the country's background would also be helpful.

Furthermore, please extend the discussion of the obtained results with published results in the literature.

In the summary chapter, I suggest the authors include the essential conclusions resulting from the conducted research in the form of a bullet point list.

Author Response

Thank you for the review, please find our response in the document attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the authors' contribution to improving the manuscript. Thank you very much for your comprehensive replies and the corrections made to the text. These are sufficient for me. I am glad that the authors have added explanations of abbreviations at the beginning of the manuscript - this makes reading very easy. I very much regret that I cannot see a map of the site, although I understand that the authors need to keep the location of the research site anonymous. In my opinion, the manuscript can now be accepted in its present form. Please just remember to format the reference list to the journal guidelines.