The manuscript “Soil erosion in Mediterranean olive groves: a review” by Andres Peñuela et al. present the results of a review study including several studies conducted across last decades about the estimation of the entity of soil erosion processes that occur in olive groves in some Mediterranean countries. Many studies report estimation made by direct measurements, some using erosion models. The topic addressed by the manuscript is relevant in the context of soil science applied to agriculture, since soil erosion is known as one of the main soil degradation processes affecting olive groves (and other permanent crops) in the Mediterranean area. Many studies have been conducted in last decades, but the absence of a common framework for soil erosion assessment has led to heterogeneous results, as this work highlights. In this framework, the review collects results obtained from tens of studies with different evaluation approaches, with the aim to identify the extent of soil erosion in this agroecosystem and the factors influencing it, taking into account of different scales (temporal and spatial) of the problem. Data collection was performed in order to obtain a homogeneous dataset to be analysed accordingly to methods usually adopted for similar studies. Considering the broad issue, the results of the data collection and analysis are presented in a concise form, in general complete but that can be improved, and discussion help the reader to understand a clear picture on the topic. In my opinion the work is well structured and written, even if a revision of English can be beneficial. The abstract provides a concise and complete summary. Some specific comments on other sections follow:

- introduction: this section provides an overview on the research about soil erosion in Mediterranean olive groves, specifically on its quantification with different methods and over different temporal and spatial scales; whereas for direct measurement methods, they were briefly introduced with some references, example of models used for soil erosion estimation are not cited in this section, thus I suggest to add some references to most used models, beyond RUSLE. In fact, as a review, some readers could not be aware of models for this purpose. See some other details in the attached pdf.

- Methods: data collection: vegetation cover is not mentioned among collected variables, but it is used in the analysis. Please add it. Statistical analysis: I suggest to add here details about test performed to check assumptions (now they are named in results)

- Results: Table 2: I suggest to add the variable vegetation cover and indicate the plot’s dimension. Section 3.2: since they are mentioned, I suggest add in the Table 3 results for CP and No-CP. Section 3.3: I suggest not to indicate results for model that are not definitive, thus only discuss log-transformed model’s results id assumptions are not satisfied. Section 3.3.2: no information is given about variable vegetation cover in the presented dataset: is it vegetation cover only between tree’s rows or also under trees? What method is used to measure it? Section 3.4: since this section does not present results, I suggest to consider it as discussion.

Please see minor comments in the attached pdf, also in conclusion sections.

In my opinion the requested changes are of minor significance with respect to the relevance of the manuscript, even if I suggest the authors to consider my suggestions. Finally, I suggest to accept the paper with request of minor revisions.

This paper deals with the assessment of soil erosion rates and the drivers of soil loss in Mediterranean olive groves. The paper is a review paper, gathering heterogenous data on studies of soil erosion/runoff rates in Mediterranean olive groves, considering separately different measurement methodologies, and distinguishing management practices. It is easy to read and straightforward.

It is a very useful approach, as there was so far no review giving consistent values of soil erosion rates in such environments. A very interesting focus is made on results differences between erosion/runoff rates regarding the various measurement methodologies and corresponding contrasting spatial and temporal scales. The major role of soil managmeent practices on erosion mitigation is evidenced. I have no major issue with this paper and recommend its publication providing a few minor to moderate edits are made.

Line 35 : provide a figure of the total area of olive coltivated in the Mediterranean basin.

Lines 52 to 62 : I would shorten this paragraph : too much emphasis is put on soil trunctation results, while many more methods are discussed after in the paper. I would rather highlight the large differences in erosion rates by mentioning two constrasting results. The detailed data about ST methodology is anyway presented in Table 2.

Lines 63-65 : Please mention that most if not all the methods mentioned are as well widely used for soil erosion studies for many other agricultural systems.

Lines 75-76 : I would invert the terms 'large-scale' and 'small-scale' in the text : 'large-scale' for a local study, vs. 'small scale' for a lesser detailed study.

Lines 88-100 : Please provide some references supporting your assumptions.

Lines 134-138 : the two sentences are repeting the issue with the normality of the residues distribution, this could be simplified and clarified.

Lines 153-157 : I would put this paragraph in the methods section.

Line 160, Table 2 : For runoff plots, the erosion rate unit should be either t/ha/year or t/ha.

Line 160, Table 2 : I would for the runoff plots method separate/sort the studies at the event/yearly scale for clarity purpose.

Line 215, Table 3 : I do not understand how you calculated the average erosion rate for each method, I cannot find the same values through calculation with Table 2. Could you add a sentence or two in the methods section describing briefly how you calculated the average erosion rate for each method?

Lines 177-185 : when we look at the values of soil erosion for ST studies, there is a large difference between FRN and tree-mound measurements. How could this be explained?

Lines 186-193 : I was wondering if the FG studies mentioned are only measuring suspended (0.45-63µm) sediments, as it is the case for many studies, or if the bedload is accounted for as well. While this should not change the explanations about sediment redeposition within the catchment, I wonder if this could not represent a non negligible part of the sediments that are transferred through the streams in Mediterranean landscapes.

Lines 245-251 : how was the reduction in soil loss/runoff calculated ? This % could be added as a new column in Table 2.

Lines 254-257 : some repetition in the two sentences, please simplify to clarify.

Lines 259-263 : it could rather be in the methods section.

Line 269, Table 4 : was the vegetation cover information provided in each study or how did the authors quantify this information ?

Line 269, Table 4 : the authors do present some combinations of factors for Multiple OLS regression. Are the other combinations (e.g. clay + veg cover) not statistically significant?

Lines 272-280, 284-285, 347-349 : since the methods section deals with the issue of log-normal transformation, I wonder if the detailed procedure is necessary to present here. Should we not directly consider the results using only log transformation?

Lines 283-296, 328-338, 360-361 : it is not straightforward to present here the results of Multiple OLS regression as the title of the section is 'slope' or 'vegetation' or 'rainfall intensity'. Perhaps a specific section dealing with Multiple OLS regression would clarify the text.

Line 323, Figure 3 : I do not understand the units for soil loss, as the variable was log-transformed?

Lines 418-422: I do not understand why these sentences are written here in the text. I think they could be removed or relocated elsewhere more appropriate in the text.

Lines 426-434 : I do not agree with the equation that is presented, due to timescale issues. Indeed, the soil truncation method integrates multi-decadal erosion, providing a fairly robust average of combined water and tillage erosion rate. Runoff plots are to the best implemented over a few years. This latter method does not alllow to have a robust average of multi-decadal soil water erosion rate (considering the elusive occurrence of higly erosive events).

Lines 490-525 : there are ten key-takeaways, all relevant. But this is quite a lot to remember. Would there be a possibility to merge some takeaways (for example 2-3-4) to help the reader to have a clearer view of these messages?

Minor edits :

Line 83, Figure 2 : why is '137Cs studies ?' mentioned ?

Line 85 : 'spatial and temporal scaleS', 'land measurement methods', 'olivE grove'

Line 115 : remove '(microplot, plot, catchment)' to avoid repetition with lines 118-119.

Line 219 : separate as a new paragraph.

Line 219 : 'For RP studies, RP corresponds to an artificial setup where bounded plots have restricted flow interactions that can lead to...'

Line 288 : 'combined effectS'

Line 309 : 'larger areas than for RS studies'

Line 379 : 'significantly lowerS'