24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

心会笑吗

铜虫 (小有名气)

应助: 1 (幼儿园)
金币: 283.8
帖子: 96
在线: 24.4小时
虫号: 1577514
注册: 2012-01-14
性别: MM
专业: 荒漠化与水土保持

[求助] 这个审稿结果修改后录用的概率有多大？已有11人参与

Dear XXX:

Your manuscript entitled "XXX" which you submitted to Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B - Plant Soil Science, has been reviewed.

Enclosed please find the reviews of the above manuscript. On the basis of the reviewers' appraisals and my own, your manuscript is conditionally accepted pending revision.

Please carefully review all criticisms and suggestions raised by the referees.

Please keep in mind that this decision does not guarantee a final acceptance of the work. In your cover letter please provide a point-by-point response to each comment.

When I have received your revised manuscript, I will notify you of the status of your manuscript.

When you revise your manuscript please highlight the changes you make in the manuscript by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B - Plant Soil Science and I look forward to receiving your revision.

Sincerely,
XXX

Referee(s)' Comments to Author:

Referee: 1

Comments to the Author
1. Novelty of the paper. I do not see some novelty in the paper. The aim of the paper was to compare infiltration /outflow rates during heavy rainfall under conditions of different treatments, slopes and with and without soil crust.
2. Results obtained by measurements (experiments) in laboratory are correct, they correspond to the known qualitative results of measurements published in literature.
3. Novelty are probably the data for Chinese loess plateau; but they are probably interesting to this region. I am not sure if this type of information (case study) can be published in this Journal.
4. I can repeat, that this study is good made. Formally, it needs a lot of improvements. Language is not good enough, there are presented some trivial information, like definition of infiltration, some terms are not used properly. Substantial language improvement is needed to sanction publication-important
5. Regarding to the influence of slope on the infiltration rate, it can be noted, that it depends on rain rate. At low rate of precipitation, the influence of slope can be negligible, but at high rates it can be significant. The rate of rain used here was extremely high, therefore the slope matters.
As many studies already are available on the topic you must highlight the new information-important

Referee: 2

Comments to the Author
General comments
Generally, the innovation degree of the manuscript is medium, since there have been some researches on infiltration under tillage treatments in Loess Plateau of China. And it is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar and sentence structure.

1) I think Fig. 3 is not necessary, since Fig. 2 clearly shows the infiltration rate curve including the steady-state infiltration rate for different tillage treatments under different slope angles, and Table I is not necessary, since Table Ⅱ shows the ponding time from different tillage treatments between the crusted and uncrusted soil surface including all the data in Table I.
2) In Table IV, the positions of Rtc and Rtuc may be opposite. The meanings of IRc-CK and IRuc-CK are not clear, and I think IRc-SS and IRuc-SS are easier to understand.
3) Enlarge description in “treatments” to explain the different treatments more clearly. As far as I understand there’re 24 treatments (2 soil surface conditions by 3 tillage treatments by 4 slope angles), aren’t there?
4) There is a lack of explanation of statistical methods used in the study. You need to provide more descriptions on the paired T-test and the Multivariate analysis.
5) The results should be compared with previous researches, since there have been some relative researches in Loess Plateau of China.
6) The conclusion section was omitted. You need to provide major conclusions from this study in a lonely section.
7) You provided an exhaustive list of references in various place. I recommend you only cite the ones that are most relevant and representative. In addition, the reference formats are not uniform, so you should revise them carefully according to the editor demands. 8) The 9th line: “The results showed that” instead of “Results show that:”?
9) The 28th line: “influencing” rather than “influence”.
10) The 45th line: “Tillage treatments sometimes were discussed as no tillage, mulch farming, stable mulch, minimum tillage and so on in the USA and Australia.” References are needed for the 2 countries listed in this sentence.
11) The 161st line: “Fig. 3” should be revised into “Fig. 4”. Fig. 4 is an example of 5° slope, but its representativeness is not clear and it can’t stand for the other slopes, so the relative conclusion appears unbelievable.
12) The 164th line: “Fig. 4” should be revised into “Fig. 5”.
13) The 166th line: the expression “1.29-1.56 times under CT treatment” and following similar ones are not accurate from mathematical angle.

Referee: 3

Comments to the Author
1. The manuscript dealt with the infiltration under tillage treatments and soil crusts in the Loess Plateau of China. One problem is that the authors used the changed soil in their experiment, compared to the undisturbed soil. Sieve could change soil particle composition and grain size distribution; while compressing could destroy the original soil porosity and soil pore structure. All of these will lead to the alterations of soil texture and bulk density, which are closely related to soil permeability. Besides, the soil used in the experiment has been processed into a uniform bulk density, which is impossible in the field environment.
2. Line 24-25: From the references you provided, you cannot draw the conclusion that “soil moisture is the greatest fact or affecting vegetation restoration and ecological environment”. I think the greatest factor is water resources instead of soil moisture.
3. Line 26-27: Please give detailed explanation about the sentence to make it convinced or more accessible. How could infiltration process increase crop yield?
4. Line 32: Is the term “a soil crust” or “soil crust”? Please clarify.
5. Line 34-36: What kind of impact does crust have on the erosion process, positive or negative? It’s better to make it clear.
6. Line 37-39: Rewrite the sentence please. The sentence “Effects of soil crusts on the soil erosion process have been studied for many years” has nothing to do with the hydraulic conductivity.
7. Line 45-46: What do you want to express through the sentence?
8. Line 60-61: After reading through the full manuscript, it’s hard to find the relationship between infiltration and soil and water loss, let alone the prevention of soil and water loss.
9. Line 62-67: “Interaction” is quite different from “combined action”. What have you done in your experiment is the combined action instead of the interaction.
10 Section of Soil Materials (Line 73-82): What have you done on the soil before the experiment could change the soil texture. Why did you select the uniform bulk density?
11. Section of Rainfall simulator(Line 83-91): The authors could use a picture to summarize these sentences.
12. Line 125: “to runoff”?
13. Line 125-130: The section of results and discussion is too simple. What about the situation under the crusted surface?
14. Line 152-153: How to draw this conclusion? Where is the table or fig.?
15. Line 206: The conclusion should come from the comparison of the crusted without tillage treatments and the crusted with tillage treatments.

回复此楼