Dear Authors

Your manuscript concerning soil properties measured or estimated by
different experimental methods for modeling soil water flow is found by the reviewers and me to be of interest for the scientific community as well as for use by practitioners.

The manuscript needs, however, to be major corrected according to the reviewers suggestions as you have also accepted and proposed in your response to the reviewers and posted comments.

I find that it is very important to follow all the suggestions given for improving your manuscript both for improving its scientific content and for improving its readability and technical content.

You have revised your manuscript on 'Use of field and laboratory methods for estimating unsaturated hydraulic properties under different land use' according to many of the suggestions provided by the reviewers.
However, I still find that your manuscript needs major revisions as you have not dealt with all the suggestions for revisions provided by the reviewers of which some is very important for the scientific content and clarity of the manuscript for the readership. You need to improve the following general and specific suggestions before your manuscript can be reconsidered for publication:

General

1. The manuscript suffer from a poor English language in many parts so you need to have a native in English language to improve the whole body of text in the manuscript.
2. Your results and discussion section remains too poor in terms of interpretation of the results and final testing of your main hypothesis given in the end of the Introduction section.
3. I am clearly missing a better structure of your results and discussion section - maybe go thorught the results of each of the methods and discuss the results from each. Then a section with a discussion of results obtained form the different methods as this is a major aim of your paper and finally a section where you show the results from the statistical testing of your only hypothesis.
4. Your concluding section is poor and as it is now a mixture of a concluding and discussion section. You will have to rewrite the conclusion and give maybe main results as bullet points as a follow up strictly on your hypothesis and aims of the study.

Specific

1. Line 130 - it is not clear when the volumetric soil water contents values were collected.
2. Line 159 - 'This point will be developed further' - this sentence is rather odd to have in a method description please remove or write more fully the explanation.
3. Line 171 - soil sample(s) I assume ?.
4. Line 173 - 'Three to seven ... variability of the results' I can not understand the meaning of this sentence ? Please clarify and rewrite.
5. Line 184 and onward. This new text belongs in my opinion not to here but to a discussion of the method and obtained results. please revise. Also poor English wording.
6. Line 218 - same as above with this new text in the revised manuscript.
7. Line 247 - same as above.
8. Line 270 -same as above - and do not use words like 'elegant'.
9. Line 277 - 'The aim of the study ...... This sentence gives no meaning in this context - seems as an answer to reviewers are misplaced.
10. Line 299 - Again the new text in this section belongs not here but more in a discussion of methods - as is one of the aims of the manuscript.
11. Line 325 - Again the text in this section belongs to the discussion of the methods.
12. Line 343 onward - this new section is clearly not to be placed here as it is part of a discussion before given any results as shown in Figures and Tables.
13. Line 397 - I do not understand the sentence fully e.g. 'ant' was is the meaning of that word ?
14. As proposed by one of the reviewers please omit the Appendix A, B and C - they are not needed.

The reviewers have also asked several specific questions that you will need to respond to in your revision as the question about the conversion procedure by Mubarak, etc.