Revision note

Dear Jesse Zhu, Ph.D.,
We are so appreciated for your letter on our manuscript (Manuscript ID PARTIC-D-11-00021), entitled Destruction characteristics and movement forms of aggregates in Ultisols by overland flow by Junguang Wang, Zhaoxia Li, Chongfa Cai, Wei Y ang. We are truly grateful to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions on improving the manuscript, which indeed help us greatly to improve the quality of our paper. Based on their suggestions, we have made careful modifications on the original manuscript both in the content of the paper and the language as well. To bring to the reviewers a more readable manuscript, we also invited a translation company to revise the English of the paper. Here submitted is a revised manuscript with a new title Effects of transporting distances and flow discharges of overland flow on aggregates destruction of Ultisols as suggested by the reviewer 2. Efforts were also made to revise as many improper expressions as we could, and we wish that the revised manuscript will meet the standard for publication.
It would be greatly appreciated if Particuology could accept our paper for publication.
We are looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
XXX
Below you will find our general reply and point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments/ questions.
Dear reviewer #1:
Comment 1:Although the English is sufficiently understandable, there are enough grammatical errors to call for the assistance of a fluent speaker to fix the errors before publication. Some sentences were labeled in the PDF papers attached in the accessory.
Reply:Thanks for your suggestion. We have made careful revisions to improve the English. Moreover, we have invited a translation company to help revise the language. It is believed that the revised paper will be readable and could meet the standard generally for publication.
Comment 2: Good results were expressed in the paper, however, the result obtained from the experiment need to be discussed thoroughly. So, more paper should be read.
Reply:Thanks for your comments. Based on your suggestions, we added more information (the flow depth and friction factor) to the discussion. For example, we added ….. in the Discussion (Line …, Page …)
Comment 3: The expression for the multiple authors should be as somebody et al. (year), all the authors for a given should not be written instead of the first one adding the year published. Reply: Thanks very much. It was revised accordingly.
Comment 4: The statistical analysis is very good, and Table 3 should also be conducted by LSD. Reply: Thanks for your comments. Table 3 was conducted by LSD.
Comment 5: I recommended the authors that figures' caption should be added at the below of each figure.
Reply: We are so regretful that we missed the caption for each figure. We thank you very much for reminding us the important information. The caption has been added
below each figure.
Comment 6: I can't understand the velocity depth in Table 5, what is the meaning?
Reply: We are so sorry for our carelessness. It should mean velocity and depth in Table 5. We have revised it to demonstrate the information clearly.
Comment 7: What is the meaning of "q" in table 6, discharge or not?
Reply: Y es, it is discharge.
Comment 8: Other revisions that should be done please see the "PDF" typed manuscript. Reply: Thanks very much. It was revised following t he advice in the “PDF” typed manuscript.
Dear reviewer #2:
General Reply:
First of all, thanks for your thoughtful suggestions. As shown in the paper, we have made careful modifications on the manuscript.
1. We have made careful revisions to improve the English where it should be. Moreover, we also have invited a translation company to revise the paper again.
2. Stabilities of aggregates derived from Shale and Quaternary red clay have already been tested and discussed in another manuscript Predicting physical equations of soil detachment by simulated concentrated flow in Ultisols (Subtropical China)).According to the suggestion, the related sections in both Methods and Results were condensed. The mentioned manuscript was cited in the present paper.
3. The expression of the sections related to aggregates movement were also revised following the advice. We added the analysis of the flow depth. We used the flow depth to judge the movement of aggregates.
Comment 1: Title: Change the title to: Effects of transporting distances and flow discharges of overland flow on aggregates destruction of Ultisols.
Reply: Thank you for your suggestion on changing the title. It is a very good suggestion. We changed the title in the revised manuscript as Effects of transporting distances and flow discharges of overland flow on aggregates destruction of Ultisols..
Comment 2(1): Revise the first sentence using two short sentences and replace "transporting capacity" with "transport capacity".
Reply: We have revised the first sentence as …and replace “transporting capacity”with “transport capacity”.
Comment 2(2): Revise "Therefore, the aim of this study was to explain and quantify the process of destruction of soil aggregates by overland flow" to "The objective of this study was to quantify the effects of transporting distances and flow discharges of overland flow on aggregates destruction of Ultisols in a 3.8 m long flume with fixed bed".
Reply: Thanks very much. We have revised the sentence accordingly.
Comment 2(3): Instead of "10°" with "17.6%" and omit "in two different experiments". Reply: We revised the ….. and omit ted “in two different experiments” as suggested.
Comment 2(4): Revise "The weight of aggregates after transporting in different distances or discharges was received at the outlet and then recorded" to "The aggregates transported for different distances or under different discharges were collected at the outlet and w as weighted. The changes in weight were used to evaluate the aggregate destruction".
Reply: We revised this sentence accordingly.
Comment 2(5): The English need further revision, see comments above.
Reply:. We made efforts to revise or modify the improper expressions in the original paper and invited a translation company for help. We wish the quality of the paper has been improved.
Comment 3(1): Page 5, line 43: Replace "soil's" with "soil".
Reply: We have revised “soil's” to “soil”.
Comment 3(2): Page 5, line 45-46: Delete (1), (2), (3), and describe using one sentence. Reply: We have deleted (1), (2), (3), and written the sentence.
Comment 3(3): Page 5, line 51: Instead of "transporting capacity" with "transport capacity" and delete "general".
Reply: We have revised and deleted “general”.
Comment 3(4): Page 5, line 52: Delete "So far".
Reply: We have deleted “So far”.
Comment 4(1): Page 8, line 108 to Page 9, line 133: This section should be condensed. See comments above.
Reply: Thanks very much. It had been condensed. (see )
Comment 4(2): Page 9, line 142 to Page 10, line 153: How many aggregates were used in the study? How many water were used to wash aggregates into flowing water? Does it influence the measured results? Where does the aggregate injected into flowing water?
Reply: A number of 20 aggregates were used for 7-5 mm, 5-3 mm size class, and a number of 80 aggregates for 3-2 size class.
The aggregates were washed off with a weak stream of water into the flow at the top of the flume. The performance didn’t influence the measured results as the stream of water was so weak.
The aggregates are injected into flowing water at the top of the flume.
Comment 4(3): Page 10, line 155: Why those distances were selected? The length of flume was 3.8 m, and how to ensure the transporting distance reached the designed values?
length of experiment flume for selecting those distances. The aggregates were washed off with a weak stream of water into the flow at the top of the flume. At the end of the flume, the aggregates were captured on a sieve with a mesh size of 0.25 mm. After this, they were washed off into the flow at the top of the flume once again. These operations were repeated until the total length of the transportation of the aggregates by the water flow in the flume reached certain preset values for every series of the experiment: 9, 18, 36, 54, 72 and108 m.
Larionov G. A., Bushueva O. G., Dobrovol’skaya N. G., Kiryukhina Z. P., Litvin L. F., & Maksimova I. A. (2007). Destruction of soil aggregates in slope flows. Eurasian Soil Science, 10: 1263–1269.
Comment 4(4): Page 10, line 166-169: How about the length of flow velocity measurement? Reply: The length of flow velocity measurement is 2 m. The sentence has been rewritten. (see )
Comment 4(5): Page 10, line 168: The reduction factor of 0.8 was used in the study, how about the flow regime? Most of flow rates are very low. Thus the flow regime should be judge by Reynolds number and choose the suitable reduction factor based on flow regime. Does the water temperature measured during the experiments?
Reply: The flow regime was transitional flow and turbulent from the Reynolds number.
Y es, the water temperature was also tested and it was 22-25°C.
Comment 4(6):Page 11, line 173-175: The friction was not used in the discussion and why it was showed here?
Reply: We are so sorry for our carelessness. Some discussion of the friction were added. For example ….
Comment 4(7):Page 11, line 181 to line 192: This section should be condensed. See comments above.
Reply: it was condensed b y following the advice. (Page … )
Comment 4(8):Page 12, line 205 to line 211: How about the flow depth? The sizes of aggregates were great, and flow discharges were very low. The flow depth was needed to judge the movement of aggregates. The reviewer thinks that most of aggregates moved as the bed load sediment. Therefore, the authors should provide more information to support their discussion. Reply: Thanks very much.According to your suggestion, we added t he analysis of the flow depth. We also revised the expression of the movement of aggregates. (see )
Comment 4(9):Page 16, line 295 to 298: See comment above.
Reply: It had been revised following the advice. (see )
Comment 5(1):Revise it according to the revisions in the sections of Results and Discussion. Reply: It was revised following the advice.
Comment 6(1):The mentioned manuscript should be cited. See comment above.
Reply: Thanks very much. It was cited in ….
Comment 6(2):Page 18, line 344 to 347: Check the turn of references.
Reply: It was revised. ….。