Dear Thanh-Nhan-Duc Tran,

We would like to express our heartfelt gratitude for your appreciation of our research work, particularly your generous praise for the construction of the debris-flow barrier dams (DFBDs) dataset. We are truly honored that you think this dataset to be unique and novel.

We acknowledge that, despite our extensive efforts in reviewing and organizing 2,519 high-quality pieces of literature and media reports, the creation of this dataset is a complex and ongoing process that requires continuous enhancement and refinement. We agree with your comments that the dataset, in its current form, has certain issues that need to be addressed. We are committed to improving this work in response to your valuable comments and suggestions.

Comment 1

- While the dataset is proposed as a worldwide collection, covering data back to the 1800s, which is impressive, only 555 dams were included. This number seems unreasonably low for a 'worldwide' scale. I am generally doubtful of this outcome.

Response 1

Thank you for your comments! The debris-flow barrier dams (DFBDs) included in our dataset were meticulously compiled from documented literature and news reports (see Manuscript PDF, Lines 114-125). We acknowledge that our dataset does not encompass all DFBD events. It is inherent to the data collection process that some literature or reports may be overlooked, and certain unreported incidents are inevitably absent (as noted in Manuscript PDF, Lines 623-628). It is obvious that only large-scale debris flows have the potential of damming rivers. However, the number of debris flow events is smaller than that of other type of landslides with the same magnitude. And current research on barrier dams focuses more on landslide barrier dams, with less attention given to debris-flow barrier dams (see Table 1 in the manuscript), hence the limited availability of literature we could consult. Due to their poor stability (see Figure 6 in the manuscript), many DFBDs quickly disappeared. Their short-lived existence makes it difficult to detect and record them timely. What’s more, For the records of early debris-flow disasters, people paid more attention to the influences on human lives and infrastructure, while lacking sufficient understanding and attention to the blockage of river channels by debris-flows. As a result, such events were often overlooked in historical records, leading to a seemingly smaller number when viewed from the perspective of historical data statistics. We think the aforementioned factors are the main cause why we only collect 555 cases. We will supplement the explanation for the number of debris-flow barrier dams in the Section 4.4 ‘Limitations in this work’ in the revised manuscript.

In comparison to other barrier dam datasets, our collection includes only 555 DFBDs, which may not seem substantial. However, our dataset is distinctly focused, being the first global compilation specifically of DFBDs. We prioritize the thorough review and validation of raw data rather than providing a simple summary of existing literatures and reports. 

It is important to emphasize that while our dataset may have limitations in terms of quantity, it represents the first comprehensive global dataset of DFBDs.  Given the scarcity of such data, this dataset has the potential to significantly enhance our understanding of the formation and evolution of DFBDs.

Comment 2

-The data review and validation process was conducted using Google Earth. While this is a traditional and effective approach that I believe many other researchers use when building datasets on dams and reservoirs, it raises the question of how far back the authors were able to retrieve data, especially to validate the geographical coordinates and dates of formation going as far back as 1800. This is a difficult question that I believe the authors need to revisit and carefully consider. Furthermore, the manuscript points out discrepancies between the reported formation dates from data sources (literature) and Google Earth. This raises the question: which source is correct, and how can this be confirmed?

Response 2

We appreciate your comments. We obtained the formation date of debris-flow barrier dams (DFBDs) by referring to literature or news reports. We utilized Google Earth to verify the formation date whenever corresponding imagery is available. If the formation date provided in the literature or news reports does not align with the information obtained from Google Earth, we believed it is not feasible to accurately establish the exact formation date, and as such, we refrained from recording it. For DFBD events with a longer history, if Google Earth does not provide relevant imagery, we relied on the available literature or news reports to determine the formation date; if the formation date is not recorded in the literature or news reports, the formation date information was not included in our dataset.

Regarding the geographical location of the DFBDs, when the data source included latitude and longitude information and corresponding imagery was available on Google Earth, we verified these coordinates through the platform. If discrepancies arise between the latitude and longitude provided by the data source and the results from Google Earth, we prioritize the Google Earth data. This is because Google Earth offers continuously updated satellite imagery and geographic data, while manually recorded literature and news reports may contain inaccuracies or biases. The automated data collection and processing capabilities of Google Earth help mitigate the risk of such human errors.

For historically remote DFBD events, if we cannot locate imagery on Google Earth, we depended on the geographical coordinates reported in the data source. When latitude and longitude information were not provided, we utilized landmarks described in the source to determine their coordinates using Google Earth. 

We will supplement this verification process in Section 2.3 of the revised Manuscript.

Comment 3

- The dataset is described as worldwide, but the majority of the dams are located in China. While this may be reasonable, given the authors' location, it creates a significant bias when only 39 dams are recorded in Italy, 43 in Japan, 33 in the United States, and 64 in other locations, compared to 333 in China. The authors should carefully reconsider whether they intend to maintain a global scale or refocus the dataset only within China mainland.

Response 3

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your meticulous review and valuable comments on our research. The objective of this study is to amass and catalog debris-flow blocking dam (DFBD) events and their related information as comprehensively as possible, with the aim of establishing a global DFBD dataset. This dataset is intended to serve as a valuable repository of data and to provide a multidimensional perspective for DFBD research.

The number of Chinese DFBDs in the dataset is significantly higher than that of other countries, which can be mainly attributed to the following reasons: (1) Our team's geographical and resource acquisition advantages. (2) Active geological activity: China is located at the junction of multiple tectonic plates, with complex geological structures and active neotectonic movements, leading to frequent earthquakes. Earthquakes cause rock fragmentation and mountain loosening, producing a large amount of loose soil and stone, providing a rich source of material for the formation of debris flows. For example, after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, a large number of debris flow dam events occurred in the earthquake-affected area and its surroundings (Fan et al., 2012a; b; 2017; 2019; Shi et al., 2015). (3) Diverse climatic conditions: China has a rich variety of climate types, with a significant monsoon climate and concentrated rainfall, often in the form of heavy storms. In some mountainous areas, intense rainfall over a short period can rapidly increase surface runoff, carrying a large amount of silt, rocks, and other materials to form debris flows. Additionally, in high-altitude glacial regions, the melting of glaciers and snow due to rising temperatures in summer can also provide ample water sources for debris flows, promoting the formation of debris flow and DFBDs. (4) Complex topography and geomorphology: China has a vast mountainous area with significant terrain undulations, crisscrossing valleys, and notable elevation differences. Especially in the western and southwestern regions, such as the edges of the Tibetan Plateau (Jiang et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2024) and the Hengduan Mountains (Zhou et al., 2022), the high mountains and deep valleys with steep slopes and rapid streams provide favorable topographical conditions for the formation of debris flow dams. A large amount of loose solid material is prone to accumulate in valleys, and once triggered by an appropriate water source, it is easy to form debris flows that can dam rivers and create debris flow dams. Although other countries like Japan frequently experience debris flows, there are few topographical conditions conducive to the formation of debris flow dams, such as deep valleys and high relief. We will supplement the reasons for the numerous DFBDs in China in Section 3.2 of the revised manuscript.

We acknowledge the geographical bias you mentioned, which is indeed a valid concern. In our efforts to create a global dataset of debris-flow blocking river events, we encountered challenges that are common in the data collection process, which may contribute to such biases. For instance, the recording and reporting of DFBD events can vary by region, influenced by local research focuses, data recording practices, and the availability of scientific resources. Furthermore, access to DFBD event data in some countries may be restricted due to data privacy policies, language barriers, or a lack of digitization. The diversity of languages in global literature and reports adds complexity to data collection, particularly when extracting information from non-English sources. Additionally, different countries and regions may employ varying standards and definitions for DFBD events, complicating data comparison and integration.

As Reviewer #3 pointed out, although the dataset contains a significantly larger number of Chinese DFBDs than those from other countries and regions, it still includes 179 DFBDs from various other locations. Given this, we believe it is acceptable to label this dataset as "global" in scope. This geographical bias does not impede the core objective of our study, which is to establish a comprehensive dataset of DFBDs while including as much related information as possible. Furthermore, it does not diminish the global value of our dataset.

Currently, this dataset represents a preliminary attempt, and while it has its limitations, it is relatively comprehensive and well-documented. We have laid a foundational framework and welcome active participation from experts and contributors from various fields and countries. Through interdisciplinary collaboration and the integration of multi-source data, we can work together to continuously improve and expand the dataset, enhancing its global representativeness and balance. We will persist in our data collection efforts and will update and upload the dataset periodically.

In response to your concerns regarding geographical bias, we will address the limitations of the spatial distribution of DFBDs in Section 4.4 and outline our plans for future research.

Reference:

[1] Fan, X., van Westen, C. J., Xu, Q., Gorum, T., and Dai, F.: Analysis of landslide dams induced by the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 57, 25-37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2012.06.002, 2012a.

[2] Fan, X., van Westen, C. J., Korup, O., Gorum, T., Xu, Q., Dai, F., Huang, R., and Wang, G.: Transient water and sediment storage of the decaying landslide dams induced by the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, China, Geomorphology, 171-172, 58-68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.05.003, 2012b.

[3] Fan, X., Xu, Q., van Westen, C. J., Huang, R., and Tang, R.: Characteristics and classification of landslide dams associated with the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, Geoenvironmental Disasters, 4, 12, 10.1186/s40677-017-0079-8, 2017.

[4] Fan, X., Scaringi, G., Domènech, G., Yang, F., Guo, X., Dai, L., He, C., Xu, Q., and Huang, R.: Two multi-temporal datasets that track the enhanced landsliding after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 11, 35–55, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-35-2019, 2019.

[5] Shi, Z. M., Wang, Y. Q., Peng, M., Chen, J. F., and Yuan, J.: Characteristics of the landslide dams induced by the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake and dynamic behavior analysis using large-scale shaking table tests, Engineering Geology, 194, 25-37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.10.009, 2015.

[6] Jiang, H., Zou, Q., Zhou, B., Hu, Z., Li, C., Yao, S., and Yao, H.: Susceptibility Assessment of Debris Flows Coupled with Ecohydrological Activation in the Eastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, 10.3390/rs14061444, 2022.

[7] Zhou, Y., Hu, X., Xi, C., Wen, H., Cao, X., Jin, T., Zhou, R., Zhang, Y., and Gong, X.: Glacial debris flow susceptibility mapping based on combined models in the Parlung Tsangpo Basin, China, Journal of Mountain Science, 21, 1231-1245, 10.1007/s11629-023-8500-0, 2024. 

[8] Zhou, Y., Yue, D., Liang, G., Li, S., Zhao, Y., Chao, Z., and Meng, X.: Risk Assessment of Debris Flow in a Mountain-Basin Area, Western China, 10.3390/rs14122942, 2022.

Comment 4

- In Figure 7, I understand that the authors aim to highlight some DFBDs using remote sensing imagery; however, I honestly cannot distinguish the DFBDs from the surrounding areas. I recommend using higher-resolution imagery, such as data from Planet, which can provide resolutions as high as 1 to 3 meters.

Response 4

Thank you! Your recommendation to use higher resolution imagery data, such as data from Planet, is very insightful. Though we have used Planet's remote sensing imagery in Figure 7, we will enhance the visual presentation of Figure 7 and include a more detailed legend and annotations within the figure to ensure that the contours and features of the DFBDs are more prominent and easily identifiable. This will assist readers in understanding the location and characteristics of the DFBDs more accurately.

Comment 5

- When reviewing the dataset provided by the authors at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13382846, I have the following major concerns:

(1) Many DFBDs (EFBD_ID 1 to 31) are listed in languages other than English. While I understand that translating or converting the names to English can be challenging, the authors are proposing a worldwide dataset. How can others utilize this data if the names are in languages like Taiwanese or Japanese (e.g., 姫川・大所川・赤禿)? After consulting with my Chinese colleague, I believe these names could be converted to English.

Response 5

Thank you for your reminder. In response to your concerns, we recognize the importance of translating all DFBD names into English to ensure accessibility for international users. We regret not completing this crucial step before submission. To address this, we will take the following immediate actions:

1. We will assemble a team of professional translators and geographers to accurately translate all non-English names into English.

2. Once the translations are complete, we will have English-native colleagues review them for accuracy and clarity.

3. We will update the dataset and re-upload the revised version to https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13382846 for public and academic access.

We understand that a truly global dataset must be free of language barriers. We apologize for any inconvenience this oversight may have caused and appreciate your valuable suggestions, which will help us improve the quality of our dataset.

Comment 6

(2) Many DFBDs are missing data on important parameters such as debris flow channel slope gradient (%) and debris flow channel length (km). I highly recommend filling in these missing pieces of information before the dataset can be considered for publication.

Response 6

We sincerely appreciate your feedback. The issue you raised regarding the lack of key parameter information in our dataset is very important to us, and we recognize the critical role these parameters play in enhancing the completeness and research value of our work. While improving the information related to DFBDs is a considerable challenge, we are committed to addressing your suggestions and overcoming these obstacles.

In response to your feedback, we will carefully re-examine the dataset and make every effort to supplement the missing parameter data, including the gradient and length of debris flow channels. To achieve this, we plan to conduct a thorough literature review and may also consider field surveys or remote sensing data to gather the necessary information.

We are dedicated to continuously improving the dataset and ensuring its quality. The updated version will be uploaded to https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13382846, making it accessible to the academic community and researchers seeking the most current and comprehensive data. We welcome your further guidance and appreciate your ongoing support.

Comment 7

(3) The dam material information for several entries (EFBD_ID 3-33) is listed in Japanese. Please ensure this information is provided in English.

Response 7

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We will immediately engage a reliable translation service to ensure the accuracy of the translation. We promise to complete the translation of all entries before the next submission and ensure that all material information is presented in English.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our paper and for providing such professional and constructive feedback. Your recognition of the global debris-flow barrier dam dataset we created has greatly inspired our entire team, significantly boosting our confidence and commitment to enhancing this dataset. You accurately pointed out the important scientific value and practical applications of this dataset. Your acknowledgment of its comprehensive range of information and potential to support future research and applications means a great deal to us. Receiving your validation of the dataset's uniqueness and significance is the most rewarding outcome of our extensive data collection and meticulous organization efforts. We are committed to further enhancing our work based on your recommendations.

Comment 1

1、 It is recommended that the paper includes detailed metadata about the dataset, specifying the sources, collection, and validation methods of the data.  Particularly, information regarding climatic and environmental factors could further enhance the applicability of the data.

Response 1

We greatly appreciate the constructive suggestions you have provided, which has been immensely helpful in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. We have already detailed the sources, collection, and validation methods of our data in the manuscript (please refer to Section 2: Data and Method). Following your suggestions, we will continue to refine Section 2: Data and Method in the revised manuscript, with the aim of making it easier for readers to understand the sources, collection, and validation of our data.

Furthermore, your mention of climatic and environmental factors has been a significant inspiration for us. We recognize the importance of these data in understanding the formation and development of DFBDs. We will make every effort to supplement the information on climatic and environmental factors, such as rainfall and temperature.

We have formulated a revision plan and will complete these changes in the coming weeks. We look forward to presenting this information more comprehensively in the revised article and anticipate your further guidance and feedback.

Thank you once again for your valuable comments.

Comment 2

2、Providing the data analysis tools and algorithms used would facilitate readers in understanding the specific steps and methods of data processing, enhancing the reproducibility of the study.

Response 2

Thank you for your suggestion. We mainly obtained information about DFBDs through literature review and news reports, etc. We have noted the source of information for each case in the dataset. We utilized Google Earth for data validation. And we mainly used Excel to process data and used Origin to create data graphs.

Comment 3

3、A detailed explanation of the sources and validation processes for each data item in the dataset is advised, especially for data obtained from news reports. The accuracy of these data may vary due to regional and source differences.

Response 3

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions and professional insights. We fully agree with your perspective that the data sources and validation processes are essential for ensuring the reliability and accuracy of our research, particularly when dealing with data derived from news reports. 

In the process of data collection and validation, we followed a clear priority order. We first used the data from literature published in high impact academic journals, as these data have undergone peer review and are of high reliability and authority. Secondly, we considered the data from literature published journals with lower impact factors. And then, we referred to news reports published on official government websites, which are accurate and timely due to their official certification. In very few cases, when there were no data from the above sources, we referred to reports from non-government media. In our dataset, the number of cases obtained from non-government media is minimal, accounting for less than 1% of the total. Through this diversified and multi-channel approach, we ensure the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the data.

To response your recommendations, we will enhance the documentation of data sources and validation procedures in the revised manuscript, especially for data obtained from news reports.

Comment 4

4、While the paper offers a global dataset, it is crucial to ensure that the findings are universally applicable, especially under varying geographical and climatic conditions.  This may require additional analysis or disclaimers regarding the limitations of the dataset in different global contexts.

Response 4

Thank you for your suggestion. We completely agree with your point that additional analysis or disclaimers regarding the limitations of the dataset in different global contexts are necessary. We will include this in the revised manuscript.

Comment 5

5、The paper discusses the applicability of existing landslide dam (LD) stability models and peak discharge models to debris-flow barrier dams (DFBDs). Does the paper sufficiently consider the limitations of these models and clearly point out them in the results.

Response 5

We appreciate your reminder. The stability of a dam and the peak discharge during breaching are influenced by the breaching mechanism and the intrinsic characteristics of the dam itself, as emphasized by Costa and Schuster (1988), Ashraf et al. (2021), and Latrubesse et al. (2020). Factors such as the geotechnical properties of the dam are crucial, as noted by Schuster (2000), Fan et al. (2020), and Pisaniello et al. (2015).

Empirical models often struggle to accurately capture the breaching mechanisms and the unique characteristics of various dams, resulting in suboptimal predictive performance. These models are primarily parameter-based and derived from a limited set of historical statistical cases, which constrains their applicability. They frequently fail to account for the diverse range of dam types and formation conditions. For example, landslide barrier dams and debris-flow barrier dams exhibit significantly different material structures and formation mechanisms, making these models less applicable to debris-flow barrier dams.

Reference:

[1] Costa, J. E. and Schuster, R. L.: The formation and failure of natural dams, 

Geological Society of America Bulletin, 100(7), 1054-1068, 1988.

[2] Ashraf, A., Iqbal, M. B., Mustafa, N., Naz, R., and Ahmad, B.: Prevalent risk of glacial lake outburst flood hazard in the Hindu Kush-Karakoram-Himalaya region of Pakistan, Environmental Earth Sciences, 80, 2021.

[3] Latrubesse, E. M., Park, E., Sieh, K., Dang, T. D., Lin, Y. N., and Yun, S.: Dam failure and a catastrophic flood in the Mekong basin (Bolaven Plateau), southern Laos, 2018, Geomorphology, 362, 107221, 2020.

[4] Schuster, R. L.: Dams built on pre-existing landslides. In: GeoEng 2000 – Geotechnical and Geological Engineering: International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. 19–24 November 2000, Melbourne, Australia. pp. 1537–1589, 2000.

[5] Fan, X., Yang, F., Siva, S. S., Xu, Q., Feng, Z., Mavrouli, O., Peng, M., Ouyang, C., Jansen, J. D., and Huang, R.: Prediction of a multi-hazard chain by an integrated numerical simulation approach: the Baige landslide, Jinsha River, China. Landsides, 17(1), 147–164, 2020.

[6] Pisaniello, J. D., Dam, T. T., and Tingey-Holyoak, J. L.: International small dam safety assurance policy benchmarks to avoid dam failure flood disasters in developing countries, Journal of Hydrology, 531, 1141-1153, 2015.

Dear Reviewer,

We are extremely grateful for your comprehensive and in-depth review and the high praise you have given to our research work on constructing the global debris-flow barrier dam dataset. Your detailed comments make us feel deeply honored and highly encouraged, and at the same time, provide us with valuable directions for further improving our research. We will, in accordance with your suggestions, further enhance the quality of this work.

Thank you again for your precious time, professional suggestions and appreciation.

Comment 1

The introduction part needs to further summarize and analyze the research status.

Response 1

Thank you very much for your insightful comments and for highlighting the need to further summarize and analyze the research status in the introduction section of our manuscript. We appreciate the importance of providing a comprehensive background that sets the stage for our study.

In response to your valuable suggestion, we will take the following steps to improve the introduction:

Literature Review Expansion: We will conduct an expanded literature review to include the most recent studies and critical findings in the field. This will provide a more thorough context for our research.

Research Gap Identification: We will identify and articulate the gaps in the current research, which our study aims to address. This will clarify how our work contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

Structural Reorganization: We will reorganize the structure of the introduction to ensure a logical flow and to better guide the reader through the background and significance of our research.

We believe these revisions will enhance the clarity and depth of the introduction, providing a solid foundation for the rest of the paper. We are committed to ensuring that our manuscript meets the highest standards of scholarship and are grateful for the opportunity to address your comments.

Thank you again for your time and for your constructive comment.

Comment 2

Figure 4 is missing the title for (c).

Response 2

Thank you for your meticulous review and for pointing out the oversight regarding the missing title for Figure 4(c) in our manuscript. We apologize for this error and appreciate your attention to detail.

To address this issue, we will take the following action:

Title Addition: We will add a clear and descriptive title for Figure 4(c) to ensure that it is consistent with the other parts of the figure and to provide the necessary context for the readers.

Review of All Figure Titles: In addition to correcting Figure 4(c), we will review all figure titles in the manuscript to ensure that each one is present and accurately reflects the content of the figure.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback. We are committed to making the necessary revisions to enhance the quality of our work.

Comment 3

The authors have pointed out the phenomenon of repeatedly river blockage by DFBDs, which is an important and interesting finding. It is recommended to further explain the causes and consequences of this phenomenon.

Response 3

Thank you for your insightful comment on our manuscript. We appreciate your recommendation to further explain the causes and consequences of the phenomenon of repeatedly river blockage by DFBDs. Your suggestion is indeed valuable as it will enhance the depth and clarity of our manuscript.

In response to your feedback, we will expand our analysis in the following ways. The causes of this phenomenon: If there is a large amount of material in the debris flow basin, or after a debris flow, a large amount of material on the slopes of the gully sides remains in a loose cemented state, and under the influence of triggering factors (such as rainfall), another debris flow occurs and blocks the river. We will add the causes for the phenomenon of repeatedly river blockage by DFBDs in Section 3.5 of the revised manuscript.

The consequences of this phenomenon：we will supplement the consequences of repeatedly river blockage by DFBDs from the following four aspects: (1) the flooding disasters upstream of the DFBDs; (2) the downstream abnormal flood disasters caused by the failure of the DFBDs; (3) the failure of DFBDs will cause sedimentation downstream, raising the riverbed and affecting the flood discharge capacity of the river channel; (4) the residual DFBDs after failure have a high risk of transforming into debris-flow disasters under the role of heavy rainfall.

Thank you again for your constructive comment.

Comment 4

Based on the DFBD dataset, the authors further discussed the applicability of existing landslide barrier dam stability models and peak discharge models to debris-flow barrier dams, which is a meaningful exploration. It is suggested that the authors further summarize the limitations of these models and potential directions for improvement.

Response 4

We are truly grateful that you have taken the precious time to review our manuscript and provided highly constructive and inspiring comments. You suggested that we further summarize the limitations of the existing stability models and peak flow models as well as the potential directions for improvement, which is crucial for improving our research.

In fact, the stability of a dam and the peak discharge during breaching depend on the breaching mechanism and the characteristics of the dam itself (Costa and Schuster, 1988; Ashraf et al., 2021; Latrubesse et al., 2020), such as the geotechnical properties of the dam (Schuster, 2000; Fan et al., 2020b; Pisaniello et al., 2015). The empirical models cannot reflect the breaching mechanism and the characteristics of the dams, hence their predictive performance is poor. Secondly, these models are often parameter models derived from historical statistical cases, which are limited in number and often fail to cover all types, all geographical environments, and all formation conditions of barrier dams. Barrier dams in different regions and with different causes have their own unique characteristics. For example, landslide barrier dams and debris-flow barrier dams differ significantly in material structure and formation mechanisms. Parameter models based on historical statistical cases are difficult to apply to all types and causes of barrier dams, and their effectiveness is greatly reduced when applied to barrier dams with characteristics significantly different from the cases used to construct the models, making it impossible to accurately provide stability and breaching discharge results that match the actual situation.

Based on the comprehensive analysis, we believe that it is necessary to meticulously categorize barrier dams according to their formation mechanisms, and to expand the existing database by increasing the number of case studies. This is precisely the original intention behind the establishment of this dataset. Additionally, we should consider the mechanisms of dam failure and the inherent characteristics of the dams themselves to refine these models, thereby enhancing the accuracy of the predictive results.

We will supplement the description of the limitations of these models and the potential improvement directions in the revised manuscript according to your suggestions. Thank you again for your meticulous review.

Reference:

[1] Costa, J. E. and Schuster, R. L.: The formation and failure of natural dams,

Geological Society of America Bulletin, 100(7), 1054-1068, 1988.

[2] Ashraf, A., Iqbal, M. B., Mustafa, N., Naz, R., and Ahmad, B.: Prevalent risk of glacial lake outburst flood hazard in the Hindu Kush-Karakoram-Himalaya region of Pakistan, Environmental Earth Sciences, 80, 2021.

[3] Latrubesse, E. M., Park, E., Sieh, K., Dang, T. D., Lin, Y. N., and Yun, S.: Dam failure and a catastrophic flood in the Mekong basin (Bolaven Plateau), southern Laos, 2018, Geomorphology, 362, 107221, 2020.

[4] Schuster, R. L.: Dams built on pre-existing landslides. In: GeoEng 2000 – Geotechnical and Geological Engineering: International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. 19–24 November 2000, Melbourne, Australia. pp. 1537–1589, 2000.

[5] Fan, X., Yang, F., Siva, S. S., Xu, Q., Feng, Z., Mavrouli, O., Peng, M., Ouyang, C., Jansen, J. D., and Huang, R.: Prediction of a multi-hazard chain by an integrated numerical simulation approach: the Baige landslide, Jinsha River, China. Landsides, 17(1), 147-164, 2020.

[6] Pisaniello, J. D., Dam, T. T., and Tingey-Holyoak, J. L.: International small dam safety assurance policy benchmarks to avoid dam failure flood disasters in developing countries, Journal of Hydrology, 531, 1141-1153, 2015.

Comment 5

The format of the reference in line 743, 'Costa, J. E. and Schuster, R. L.: The formation and failure of natural dams, Geological Society of America Bulletin, 100(7), 1054-1068, 1988.', seems to be incorrect.

Response 5

Thank you for your attention to the reference format in the manuscript. The issue with the reference format you pointed out does indeed exist, and we will make the necessary corrections.

The correct reference format should be as follows: Costa, J. E., and Schuster, R. L.: The formation and failure of natural dams，Geological Society of America Bulletin, 100(7), 1054-1068, 1988.

We will standardize all reference formats in the revised manuscript to ensure that they comply with the journal's requirements and academic standards. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback, which is crucial for improving the quality of our manuscript.

Comment 6

It is recommended that the authors unify the language in the dataset to English to facilitate readers in reading and accessing the data.

Response 6

Thank you very much for your meticulous review. We will review all entries in the dataset and translate non-English entries into English to ensure the consistency of the dataset. Furthermore, we will update the revised dataset on Zenodo.

Comment 7

The authors claimed that this is a worldwide dataset. However, the number of DFBDs in China in the dataset was much greater than that in other countries and regions. Considering that there are still 179 DFBDs in other countries and regions in this dataset and the value of these data themselves, I think it is acceptable to name this data on a 'worldwide' scale. Nevertheless, it is recommended that the authors supplement the reasons for the large number of DFBDs in China in this dataset. Alternatively, in Section 4.4 'Limitations in this work,' the authors should discuss the spatial distribution limitations of the DFBDs included in the dataset and outline plans for future research.

Response 7

Thank you for your suggestion, and we fully agree with your perspective. In fact, in section 3.2 of our manuscript, we have already explained the reasons for the large number of Chinese DFBDs in the dataset. Following your advice, we will supplement the reasons for the high number of Chinese DFBDs in Section 3.2 of the revised manuscript.

The number of Chinese DFBDs in the dataset is significantly higher than that of other countries, which can be mainly attributed to the following reasons: (1) Our team's geographical and resource acquisition advantages. (2) Active geological activity: China is located at the junction of multiple tectonic plates, with complex geological structures and active neotectonic movements, leading to frequent earthquakes. Earthquakes cause rock fragmentation and mountain loosening, producing a large amount of loose soil and stone, providing a rich source of material for the formation of debris flows. For example, after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, a large number of debris flow dam events occurred in the earthquake-affected area and its surroundings (Fan et al., 2012a; b; 2017; 2019; Shi et al., 2015). (3) Diverse climatic conditions: China has a rich variety of climate types, with a significant monsoon climate and concentrated rainfall, often in the form of heavy storms. In some mountainous areas, intense rainfall over a short period can rapidly increase surface runoff, carrying a large amount of silt, rocks, and other materials to form debris flows. Additionally, in high-altitude glacial regions, the melting of glaciers and snow due to rising temperatures in summer can also provide ample water sources for debris flows, promoting the formation of debris flow and DFBDs. (4) Complex topography and geomorphology: China has a vast mountainous area with significant terrain undulations, crisscrossing valleys, and notable elevation differences. Especially in the western and southwestern regions, such as the edges of the Tibetan Plateau (Jiang et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2024) and the Hengduan Mountains (Zhou et al., 2022), the high mountains and deep valleys with steep slopes and rapid streams provide favorable topographical conditions for the formation of debris flow dams. A large amount of loose solid material is prone to accumulate in valleys, and once triggered by an appropriate water source, it is easy to form debris flows that can dam rivers and create debris flow dams. Although other countries like Japan frequently experience debris flows, there are few topographical conditions conducive to the formation of debris flow dams, such as deep valleys and high relief. We will supplement the reasons for the numerous DFBDs in China in Section 3.2 of the revised manuscript.

Reference:

[1] Fan, X., van Westen, C. J., Xu, Q., Gorum, T., and Dai, F.: Analysis of landslide dams induced by the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 57, 25-37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2012.06.002, 2012a.

[2] Fan, X., van Westen, C. J., Korup, O., Gorum, T., Xu, Q., Dai, F., Huang, R., and Wang, G.: Transient water and sediment storage of the decaying landslide dams induced by the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, China, Geomorphology, 171-172, 58-68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.05.003, 2012b.

[3] Fan, X., Xu, Q., van Westen, C. J., Huang, R., and Tang, R.: Characteristics and classification of landslide dams associated with the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, Geoenvironmental Disasters, 4, 12, 10.1186/s40677-017-0079-8, 2017.

[4] Fan, X., Scaringi, G., Domènech, G., Yang, F., Guo, X., Dai, L., He, C., Xu, Q., and Huang, R.: Two multi-temporal datasets that track the enhanced landsliding after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 11, 35–55, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-35-2019, 2019.

[5] Shi, Z. M., Wang, Y. Q., Peng, M., Chen, J. F., and Yuan, J.: Characteristics of the landslide dams induced by the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake and dynamic behavior analysis using large-scale shaking table tests, Engineering Geology, 194, 25-37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.10.009, 2015.

[6] Jiang, H., Zou, Q., Zhou, B., Hu, Z., Li, C., Yao, S., and Yao, H.: Susceptibility Assessment of Debris Flows Coupled with Ecohydrological Activation in the Eastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, 10.3390/rs14061444, 2022.

[7] Zhou, Y., Hu, X., Xi, C., Wen, H., Cao, X., Jin, T., Zhou, R., Zhang, Y., and Gong, X.: Glacial debris flow susceptibility mapping based on combined models in the Parlung Tsangpo Basin, China, Journal of Mountain Science, 21, 1231-1245, 10.1007/s11629-023-8500-0, 2024.

[8] Zhou, Y., Yue, D., Liang, G., Li, S., Zhao, Y., Chao, Z., and Meng, X.: Risk Assessment of Debris Flow in a Mountain-Basin Area, Western China, 10.3390/rs14122942, 2022.

Comment 8

In view of the fact that the construction of the dataset is an ongoing process, it is recommended that the authors continue to refine and update the dataset in future work.

Response 8

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions and support for our research. We completely agree with your perspective that the construction of the dataset is indeed an ongoing process that requires continuous refinement and updating. We plan to take the following measures in our future research:

Continuous Updating: We will regularly review and update the dataset to include the latest research findings and discoveries, ensuring the timeliness and relevance of the dataset.

Data Quality Control: We will continue to conduct strict quality control on the dataset to ensure the accuracy and reliability of all entries.

Collaboration and Sharing: We encourage collaboration with peers to share data and resources in order to jointly advance research in this field.

Technological Advancements: With the development of technology, we will explore new tools and methods to enhance the functionality and user experience of the dataset.

We are committed to incorporating these measures into our future work plans and continuously optimizing the dataset. Once again, thank you for your suggestions, which are of great significance to improving the quality of our research and the practicality of the dataset.

Comment 9

Can the author supplement the gradation parameters of debris flow barrier dam?

Response 9

Thank you for your insightful comments. We acknowledge that the gradation parameters are crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the characteristics and behavior of the dams. However, collecting information on the gradation parameters for DFBDs is indeed a challenging task. We will do our utmost to supplement the gradation parameters information.

Comment 10

It is suggested that the author further explains how to define the ' stability ' of the debris flow barrier dam? Because the structure of the debris flow dam is very stable.

Response 10

Thank you for your comment. The empirical classification schemes of barrier dam stability by Ermini and Casagli (2003), Korup (2004), and Tacconi Stefanelli et al. (2016) currently in use build upon the initial definition by Casagli and Ermini (1999), which is restricted to barrier dams that have either failed catastrophically or have not failed. In these studies, stability is a momentary definition of the state of the dam and the dammed lake at the time of observation but does not include the duration of non-failure (longevity). Per that definition, a barrier dam is termed stable if a dammed lake still exists or is filled in with sediments at the time of the analysis. The latter indicates that the dam was able to retain the lake water (maintaining in- and outflow balance by seepage through the dam or flow along a spillway) and allowed continued sedimentation into the lake until the lake was silted up. Those classified ‘not stable’ have breached catastrophically, evidenced by deep gullies, an impoundment devoid of significant sediments, and/or with tell-tale erosional features within left-over sediments that indicate rapid drawdown, and/or flood sediments downstream (Fan et al., 2020).

The assessment of stability is a complex process, which not only involves the structural stability of the dam body but also includes the dynamic interactions between the dam and the dammed lake water flow (Tacconi Stefanelli et al., 2016). Therefore, the stability of the dam structure and the stability of the dam itself are two different concepts. To sum up, the fact that the structure of the debris-flow barrier dam is very stable does not mean that the debris- flow barrier dam is stable.

Reference:

[1] Ermini, L. and Casagli, N.: Prediction of the behaviour of landslide dams using a geomorphological dimensionless index, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 28, 31-47, https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.424, 2003.

[2] Korup, O.: Geomorphometric characteristics of New Zealand landslide dams, Eng. Geol, 73 (1-2), 13–35, 2004.

[3] Tacconi Stefanelli, C., Segoni, S., Casagli, N., and Catani, F.: Geomorphic indexing of landslide dams evolution, Eng. Geol, 208, 1–10, 2016.

[4] Casagli, N., and Ermini, L.: Geomorphic analysis of landslide dams in the Northern Apennine, Trans. Jpn. Geomorphol, 20 (3), 219–249, 1999.

[5] Fan, X., Dufresne, A., Siva Subramanian, S., Strom, A., Hermanns, R., Tacconi Stefanelli, C., Hewitt, K., Yunus, A. P., Dunning, S., Capra, L., Geertsema, M., Miller, B., Casagli, N., Jansen, J. D., and Xu, Q.: The formation and impact of landslide dams – State of the art, Earth-Science Reviews, 203, 103116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103116, 2020.