Research on Permeability Coefficient of Fine Sediments in Debris-Flow Gullies, Southwestern China
, Jingjing Xie 1,2, Jingyi Yang 1,2, Peng Liu 1,2, Dingkun Chang 1,2 and Wentao Xu 1,2,4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see the attachment
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks for your comments and suggestions.
Our responses are in the attached file. Please see the attachment!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments:
The authors measured several parameters of fine sediments in debris flow gully and found a few significant correlation between them as well as lack of some that could possibly appear. They proposed a new method of estimating permeability coefficient of the sediment using its other characteristics.
My main general concern is that too much focus is put on the technical particularities (like the interface details of some programs used along with measurement apparats) and too little attention is paid to the physical background of the measured quantities and processes. An improvement there is most welcome.
The language needs to be refined. While it is understandable it loses its logic in many fragments; a few of them I outlined in the “minor issues” section, but there are many places for improvement elsewhere too.
The results and conclusions appear valid.
References look well.
Specific major issues:
(60-61) A more detailed explanation of the permeability coefficient is needed here, preferably with the formula used (even if the most common formula was in use). It is important to indicate in this place whether isotropic or anisotropic attempt is in use in this paper (later fragments suggest the isotropic approach).
(86, 139) It is unclear whether the whole area shown in the map (fig 1) is the research area, or a part of it. I would suggest merging this figure with the current fig 3, but using lighter markers for sampling spots (like x-es or empty circles). The photo insert within fig 3 could be then a figure on its own as an image of one of sample taking spot.
(182) The range of permeability coefficient presented in the histogram is quite wide. Is there any dependence between the sampling location and measured permeability? Especially the origin of the leftmost peak of the histogram is of interest. Please comment.
(195-202) Instead of a detailed manual “which key to press” it would be advisable to include some information how to prepare a sample, and – most important – what the result of measurement actually is. Is it a single value (if so – how to interpret it?), a range, a distribution? This fragment needs a profound rework as the outcome may affect the conclusions to a great degree.
(250-257) Again, it would be much better to focus on the physical aspect of this measurement instead of describing which icon is to be clicked… This needs to be changed.
(487-504) This may relate to the result obtained in (195-202). Thus a detailed explanation what is really measured there as “particle size” is crucial. Then including that information in the reasoning presented here could clarify the result (which is somewhat counter-intuitive).
Specific minor issues:
(14) „Because they start firstly when meeting water” – I suggest rewording, it is not clear at the first glance and (especially in the abstract) it should be.
(33) It sounds here like the stones are being caused by the rainstorm… Correction welcome.
(97) “GF” should be expanded here as it is its first use. Then in (127) using just “GF” would be enough.
(157) The photos would benefit from slight enlarging (like 20-25%) and leaving only letter indications (“A”, “B”, “C”, etc.) in them. Then the description what is “A” or “B” can be moved to the figure caption. The measurement description (159-173) should then follow this convention.
(212) What “other factors” are meant here? (It can be deduced from the context, but it’s better when it is explicitly specified).
(335-354) This is the crucial measurement so adding a figure depicting its principle is advisable.
(394-395) Something is definitely lacking in this sentence. Please check.
(400-401) I guess it was the authors who calculated – not the paper itself…
(413-417) For the sake of better visibility I would suggest merging appropriate left and right frames into three bigger pictures showing both trend lines each (maybe using a different colors, maybe different line styles).
(451-452) The figure caption should be improved to be more descriptive, as this figure seems to present the most important result obtained.
(505) Given the contents, I recommend altering the chapter title to “Summary and conclusions”.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments and suggestions.
Our responses are in the attached file. Please see the attachment!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The main objective of the paper sounds very interesting and the presentation of the methods and the materials used through research acitivities is quite clear.
The paper needs to be improved by writing the new introduction (with better scientific approach) and by including more specific citation of the previous paper written and connected with this research area.
The suggestion is also the graphical and statistical presentation of the rainfall data as one important generating factor of the debris flow.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments and suggestions.
Our responses are in the attached file. Please see the attachment!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors! I appreciate your efforts in improving of manuscript. Now it looks better. However I have some additional comments, suggestions and questions:
- In the Title you could omitted “Laobeichuan City, Sichuan Province” but mentioned it in the abstract.
- 107. Please add also according to the Köppen climate classification (for example Cfa or ???)
- 113. Please rephrase “It is an area seriously affected by the Wenchuan earthquake in 2008, which leading 113 to the heavy rainfall erosivity [4].” Soil cover becomes more erodible?
- 265. “Methes” > meshes (which size?)
- 267. “manu” > manual
I suggest to use English editing (native English colleague or language editing service). Now is difficult to read the manuscript.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments, suggestions and questions. Our responses are in the attachment.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The quality of the paper improved within the first iteration of corrections, yet there are still a few things that require enhancements.
(121) “Field sampling field” – this looks strange. Better: “Field sampling sites”.
(121,122) The black triangles seem to denote mountains. So maybe it is fine to describe them as so in the legends. Both legends should also gave similar look, now the lower one is in bold while the upper one is not.
(133) A literature reference to Gaofen is welcome.
(220) “in section 1” may be discarded.
(252) I suggest adding a remark about the location/permeability dependence here – similar to the one the authors wrote in the “response” file but with clear description what is “right”, “left” & “central”.
(522-530) Something is wrong with displaying of the figures. Their contents seem right however.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Our responses are in the attachment.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
