Dear Authors,
based on the reports from two referees and on my personal assessment, minor revision of your manuscript are required.
From your replies to the comments received, I see that you are going to address all the issues raised.
I look forward to receiving the revised manuscript for my final recommendation.
Best regards,
Roberto Greco

Dear authors,
I carefully read the revised manuscript, and I believe that, although most of the issues raised by the referees have been addressed, further revisions are needed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Specifically, the following points should be carefully considered:

1. Equations (3) and (4), used for the assessment of slope failure conditions, do not seem to include the contribution of the unsaturated conditions to soil shear strength. In spite of this, in Figure 7 (panels c and d), the suction stress curves for two layers of the two differently vegetated soils are plotted. You should explain clearly how and where these information has been used during the stability analysis and, if it wasn't actually used owing to the approximated approach followed, you should better remove these curves. However, if they have been used and you decide to retain them, you should describe how were they derived from the soil water retention curves.

2. The "sliding layers" in the two considered soil profiles (i.e., woodland and shrubland) are repeatedly mentioned throughout the manuscript. However, it seems that equation (3) has been evaluated at the base of the soil profile (line 170-171: "z is the soil thickness"). If this is a mistake, and the sliding surface was identified somewhere else throughout the soil profile, this should be clearly explained. Furthermore, as regards the sliding surface in the two considered profiles, and the parameters reported in Table 1 as well as the curves plotted in fig. 7, layer 3 (for the woodland profile) and layer 2 (for the shrubland) are mentioned. However, nowhere in the manuscript any information about layered soil profiles is reported, so the reader does not know of the existence of those layers. This makes impossible to fully understand the discussion of the results, thus it should be modified and made consistent.

3. In figure 5, panels c and d are inverted compared to what is written in the figure caption. Please, fix it.

Apart from the above mentioned specific points, I invite you to carefully check the entire manuscript, as I could have missed other unclear or inconsistent points.

I look forward to receiving the new version of the manuscript.

Best regards,

Roberto Greco