Geospatial Analysis with Landsat Series and Sentinel-3B OLCI Satellites to Assess Changes in Land Use and Water Quality over Time in Brazil
, Laércio Stolfo Maculan 1, Dieisson Pivoto 1, Grace Tibério Cardoso 1, Diana Pinto 2, Bashir Adelodun 3,4, Brian William Bodah 1,5,6, M. Santosh 7,8,*, Marluse Guedes Bortoluzzi 1, Elisiane Branco 1 and Alcindo Neckel 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments:
The manuscript analyzes land cover change and water quality in the southern Brazil region using long time series Landsat as well as sentinel data. Overall, the manuscript has some practical value and is consistent with the research interests of SUSTAINABILITY. However, ignoring the limited innovation of this work, the manuscript still has a lot of room for improvement. I recommend that the authors perform a major revision and reconsider this article for publication in SUSTAINABILITY.
First of all, the manuscript is extremely lacking in methodological details, precision results, and uncertainty analysis regarding land cover classification. How many and what variables did you consider and use in the classifier? The information on field sampling (training) is deficient. How many samples were collected? Where were they collected? Was there any sampling scheme? Same on the accuracy assessment. A standard confusion matrix should be established. How many samples were used? Which was the accuracy of the different classes? More information is needed.
Secondly, the authors' study deviates from the scientific question. Based on the introduction section, I feel that the authors are trying to emphasize the sustainability of agricultural land, food security. However, only one of the four land cover types in the study area relates to agricultural land and fails to reflect more details about what all the secondary classes of agricultural land in the study area contain. In addition, the authors went on to analyze water quality using Sentinel data, which I felt was somewhat surprising. At the very least, the quality of the agricultural land should be assessed first and foremost, not the quality of the water bodies. I would ask the authors to reconsider and sort out this issue.
Thirdly, I think it is not a wise approach to write the results and discussion together. As of now, the discussion is not sufficient, and I think it should be further strengthened.
Fourthly, the artwork and resolution of the figures in the manuscript should be improved and enhanced.
Specific comments:
*1. Title: Landsat 2, 5, 7, 8 is better to Landsat 2/5/7/8.
*2. Abstract: I think the abstract (the conclusion is also) is missing many important results, so it should be rewritten.
*3. Line 31-32: I recommend showing specific evaluation results to illustrate reliability.
*4. Line 87: “to measure” should be “To measure”.
*5. Remote sensing image data pre-processing methods must be supplemented in 2.2 Methods of data collection
*6. Line 158: Table 1, Why is the image coverage in March? How did you considered about it?
*7. Line 164: Why are you classified into four categories? Which classification system or principle are you basing this on? What are the definitions of these four categories? In addition, the image interpretation signs of different land cover types at different sensors should be shown.
*8. Line 165: The amount of clouds in the study area is best shown. Differences in different sensors should be discussed.
*9. Line 165-166: Why use Gaussian model for classification? As far as I know, Random Forest is currently a robust classification method, so why not consider using RF classifier?
*10. Line 183: Why consider so many landscape indices. I feel the reader will get lost in these landscape indices. Could the author please clarify the selection principle and its meaning?
*11. Line 202: How much cloud coverage? Is it within the acceptable range?
*12. Line 233-386: These paragraphs look like a laundry list. Please try to condense the information to key results and messages.
*13. Line 330, 388, 424: These titles are strange to me.
*14. Line 469-473: Accuracy evaluation should be placed in the main body.
*15. Figure 7~9: It is advisable to add statistical items.
***END***
Author Response
Dear Editor
Thank you for taking the time to manage this editorial process and for sending us review comments of revision.
We have revised our paper accommodating all the comments. We provide below the point by point reply to the comments.
We reinforce that we are happy with the unanimous recommendation of the reviewers to recommend the manuscript for publication. In this context, the corrections requested by the reviewers were carried out in detail, thus meeting the reviewer's suggestion.
We also thank the editors responsible for the theme, and for the publication invitation (Remote Sensing Studies Applied to the Use of Satellite Images in Global Scale). Thank you for the trust placed in our studies.
General comments:
Authors respond: First of all, we want to thank you and the reviewers for the evaluation of our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to the 2 anonymous reviewers along with your comments. The comments and their replies are shown below in two different colors. We hope you will consider our manuscript for publication in your esteemed journal. The manuscript is original, no part of the manuscript has been published before, nor is any part of it under consideration for publication at another journal. We convey our immense thanks for dedicating your time to this evaluation. For, without doubt, it helped to improve the quality of this manuscript. Thanks.
REVIEWER 1
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out these items. To address this, we extrapolated in every highlighted area as suggested. We convey our immense thanks for dedicating your time to this evaluation. It definitely helped improve the quality of this manuscript. Thanks.
The manuscript analyzes land cover change and water quality in the southern Brazil region using long time series Landsat as well as sentinel data. Overall, the manuscript has some practical value and is consistent with the research interests of SUSTAINABILITY. However, ignoring the limited innovation of this work, the manuscript still has a lot of room for improvement. I recommend that the authors perform a major revision and reconsider this article for publication in SUSTAINABILITY.
Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the items. The entire manuscript has been revised. Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript, which has greatly improved the quality of the manuscript, and thus recommend it for publication in SUSTAINABILITY.
First of all, the manuscript is extremely lacking in methodological details, precision results, and uncertainty analysis regarding land cover classification. How many and what variables did you consider and use in the classifier? The information on field sampling (training) is deficient. How many samples were collected? Where were they collected? Was there any sampling scheme? Same on the accuracy assessment. A standard confusion matrix should be established. How many samples were used? Which was the accuracy of the different classes? More information is needed.
Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the items. The entire manuscript was revised according to the specific recommendations. By solving these problems, we noticed a high improvement in the manuscript. We are grateful for helping us to improve the quality of our manuscript. Thanks.
Secondly, the authors' study deviates from the scientific question. Based on the introduction section, I feel that the authors are trying to emphasize the sustainability of agricultural land, food security. However, only one of the four land cover types in the study area relates to agricultural land and fails to reflect more details about what all the secondary classes of agricultural land in the study area contain. In addition, the authors went on to analyze water quality using Sentinel data, which I felt was somewhat surprising. At the very least, the quality of the agricultural land should be assessed first and foremost, not the quality of the water bodies. I would ask the authors to reconsider and sort out this issue.
Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the items. It is necessary to analyze the water quality together in the manuscript, because the classes used are in an area of direct influence with the water. The area is in an area of constant inspection, where it is possible to safely assess the effectiveness of the public policy aimed at environmental sustainability, as mentioned in the text. Thank you for helping us to improve the quality of our manuscript. Thanks.
Thirdly, I think it is not a wise approach to write the results and discussion together. As of now, the discussion is not sufficient, and I think it should be further strengthened.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. We inform you that a concise review of the manuscript was carried out. Thus, we noticed an improvement in the manuscript. Thank you for helping us to improve the quality of our manuscript. Thanks.
Fourthly, the artwork and resolution of the figures in the manuscript should be improved and enhanced.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. All of figures, were re-formulated. This greatly improved the graphic quality of the manuscript. Thank you for helping us to improve the quality of our manuscript. Thanks.
Specific comments:
*1. Title: Landsat 2, 5, 7, 8 is better to Landsat 2/5/7/8.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. To solve this problem, the recommendation was followed and the title was readjusted as recommended, as pointed out by REVIEWER 2. But in the text this item was corrected according to the description. Thank you for helping to improve the quality of the manuscript's title. Thanks.
*2. Abstract: I think the abstract (the conclusion is also) is missing many important results, so it should be rewritten.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. To solve this problem, the item has been rewritten. Thank you for helping to improve the quality of the manuscript's. Thanks.
*3. Line 31-32: I recommend showing specific evaluation results to illustrate reliability.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. To solve this problem, the item has been rewritten. Thank you for helping to improve the quality of the manuscript's. Thanks.
*4. Line 87: “to measure” should be “To measure”.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. The pointed item has been corrected in the text. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
*5. Remote sensing image data pre-processing methods must be supplemented in 2.2 Methods of data collection
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. To answer this, pre-processing methods were explained. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
*6. Line 158: Table 1, Why is the image coverage in March? How did you considered about it?
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. This problem was solved in the text, justifying the reason for choosing the time series for the months of March, in relation to the analyzed period. Noting that, other images had many shadows of clouds, because the State of Rio Grande do Sul has few clouds in the summer, other periods and very difficult to obtain and properly analyze the landscape with satellite images. This was made clearer in the manuscript text. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
*7. Line 164: Why are you classified into four categories? Which classification system or principle are you basing this on? What are the definitions of these four categories? In addition, the image interpretation signs of different land cover types at different sensors should be shown.
Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the items. We agree. To solve this problem were explained in the text why the supervised classification model occurred in four categories, because they are basic classes of the landscape pointed out in the literature. So the study was based on a supervised classification model (RGB543), this was also explained in the text. The text also explains the image interpretation signals of different types of land cover in different sensors, in relation to the quantity of features. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
*8. Line 165: The amount of clouds in the study area is best shown. Differences in different sensors should be discussed.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. This issue has been resolved in the text, with a better explanation of these pointed items. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
*9. Line 165-166: Why use Gaussian model for classification? As far as I know, Random Forest is currently a robust classification method, so why not consider using RF classifier?
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. We cannot fail to ignore this fact, and this possibility of analysis. In this sense, we suggest in the conclusion in future works, the satellite analysis the use of the Random Forest model for being a model that presents the robust classification method, being able to be compared with the data obtained in this study, with the use of the method of analysis from the Gaussian model. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
*10. Line 183: Why consider so many landscape indices. I feel the reader will get lost in these landscape indices. Could the author please clarify the selection principle and its meaning?
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. We made it clear in the text of the manuscript, which followed a methodological pattern, as pointed out in the literature. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
*11. Line 202: How much cloud coverage? Is it within the acceptable range?
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. To solve this problem, the item was better explained in the text. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
*12. Line 233-386: These paragraphs look like a laundry list. Please try to condense the information to key results and messages.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. The authors do not agree with this note (“laundry list”), but we respect their opinion. We have reviewed and are presenting the results of our study, without them, we understand that our study would not be valid. Respectfully, we appreciate the suggestion. Thanks.
*13. Line 330, 388, 424: These titles are strange to me.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. To solve this problem, the titles mentioned in the manuscript were revised. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
*14. Line 469-473: Accuracy evaluation should be placed in the main body.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. To resolve this issue the pointed item was added to the text as requested. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
*15. Figure 7~9: It is advisable to add statistical items.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. Data were inserted in the figures, as recommended. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
REVIEWER 2
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out these items. To address this, we extrapolated in every highlighted area as suggested. We convey our immense thanks for dedicating your time to this evaluation. It definitely helped improve the quality of this manuscript. Thanks.
This manuscript is trying to present the geospatial analyses to gain fundamental importance on a global scale following emphasis on sustainability. The authors geospatially analyzed images from Landsat 2, 5, 7 and 8 satellites during 1975-2020 to determine changes in land use. They also applied Sentinel-3B OLCI (Ocean 28 Land Color Instrument) images taken in 2019-2021 to assess water resources, based on water turbidity levels (TSM_NN), suspended pollution potential (ADG_443_NN) and the presence of chlorophyll-a (CHL_NN) to temporally monitor the effectiveness of Brazilian legislation currently in force. Although this work on sustainability standards was applied to a hydrographic basin dedicated to agricultural production located in southern Brazil, Landsat 2, 5, 7 and 8 satellite images revealed that land use changes led to an increase in food production and vegetative cover from 1975-2020. However, Sentinel-3B OLCI satellite images taken in the same region in 2019-2021 showed that the waters of the Capinguí Dam reservoir have a high concentration of ADG_443_NN (3,830 m-1 ), CHL_NN (20,290 mg m-3 ) and TSM_NN (100 gm-3 36 ), capable of endangering public health and damaging hydrographic preservation.
Actually, the land use and water quality are two things so that the title of this manuscript should be covered with the two information.
Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the items. It was necessary to analyze the water quality together in the manuscript, because the classes used are in an area of direct influence with the water. The area is in an area of constant inspection, where it is possible to safely assess the effectiveness of the public policy aimed at environmental sustainability, as mentioned in the text. Thank you for helping us to improve the quality of our manuscript. Thanks.
In general, it needs to be improved or revised as below:
1) the title "Geospatial analysis with Landsat 2, 5, 7, 8 and Sentinel-3B OLCI satellites to assess changes in land use over time in southern Brazil" can be changed into to "Geospatial analysis with Landsat series and Sentinel-3B OLCI satellites to assess changes in land use and water quality over time in Brazil";
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. To solve this problem, the recommendation was followed and the title was readjusted as recommended. Thank you for helping to improve the quality of the manuscript's title. Thanks.
2) Figure 1 is not clear and should be made up well;
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. To solve this problem, Figure 1 was again elaborated, with more specific data from the study area. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
3) Figure 4-10 are also not clear and should be made up well;
Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the items. Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 were removed, the data were all described in the text, and we could not get an adequate resolution for these figures. The figures, were adequate, in the sense and express more the results, as requested. Which greatly improved the graphic quality of the manuscript. Thanks.
4) References are fine;
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. Thank you for helping to improve the quality of the manuscript's. Thanks.
More specifically, the water quality parameters with units should be clarified, such as line 504-506 "high concentrations of suspended material on the water surface (3,830 m-1), chlorophyll-a (20,290 mg CHL_NN m-3) and water turbidity (100 (gm-3))". Please also confirm if that the unit of suspended material is m-1 and water turbidity is gm-3?
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. By reviewing all data in accordance with ESA, confirming the units used. We noticed that, in some units, they were corrected in the text, and also demonstrated in the figures. So we noticed an improvement in the manuscript text. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
____________________________
We also point out that the text was submitted to a specialized professional who is a native English speaker, specializing in translating scientific manuscripts and to an agency specializing in spelling corrections to correct possible spelling errors in the manuscript.
We are very grateful for the invaluable contributions generated by the reviewers, which further improved the quality of the manuscript. Technically, the only word of thanks we can express is sincere Gratitude.
Yours very sincerely,
___________________
Corresponding authors
- Santosh
Researcher ID: https://publons.com/wos-op/researcher/1334197/m-santosh/
Scopus: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=55110642200
&
Alcindo Neckel
Researcher ID: https://publons.com/wos-op/researcher/3831212/alcindo-neckel/
ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alcindo-Neckel
Scopus: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=56973887600
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript is trying to present the geospatial analyses to gain fundamental importance on a global scale following emphasis on sustainability. The authors geospatially analyzed images from Landsat 2, 5, 7 and 8 satellites during 1975-2020 to determine changes in land use. They also applied Sentinel-3B OLCI (Ocean 28 Land Color Instrument) images taken in 2019-2021 to assess water resources, based on water turbidity levels (TSM_NN), suspended pollution potential (ADG_443_NN) and the presence of chlorophyll-a (CHL_NN) to temporally monitor the effectiveness of Brazilian legislation currently in force. Although this work on sustainability standards was applied to a hydrographic basin dedicated to agricultural production located in southern Brazil, Landsat 2, 5, 7 and 8 satellite images revealed that land use changes led to an increase in food production and vegetative cover from 1975-2020. However, Sentinel-3B OLCI satellite images taken in the same region in 2019-2021 showed that the waters of the Capinguí Dam reservoir have a high concentration of ADG_443_NN (3,830 m-1 ), CHL_NN (20,290 mg m-3 ) and TSM_NN (100 gm-3 36 ), capable of endangering public health and damaging hydrographic preservation.
Actually, the land use and water quality are two things so that the title of this manuscript should be covered with the two information. In general, it needs to be improved or revised as below:
1) the title "Geospatial analysis with Landsat 2, 5, 7, 8 and Sentinel-3B OLCI satellites to assess changes in land use over time in southern Brazil" can be changed into to "Geospatial analysis with Landsat series and Sentinel-3B OLCI satellites to assess changes in land use and water quality over time in Brazil";
2) Figure 1 is not clear and should be made up well;
3) Figure 4-10 are also not clear and should be made up well;
4) References are fine;
More specifically, the water quality parameters with units should be clarified, such as line 504-506 "high concentrations of suspended material on the water surface (3,830 m-1), chlorophyll-a (20,290 mg CHL_NN m-3) and water turbidity (100 (gm-3))". Please also confirm if that the unit of suspended material is m-1 and water turbidity is gm-3?
Author Response
Dear Editor
Thank you for taking the time to manage this editorial process and for sending us review comments of revision.
We have revised our paper accommodating all the comments. We provide below the point by point reply to the comments.
We reinforce that we are happy with the unanimous recommendation of the reviewers to recommend the manuscript for publication. In this context, the corrections requested by the reviewers were carried out in detail, thus meeting the reviewer's suggestion.
We also thank the editors responsible for the theme, and for the publication invitation (Remote Sensing Studies Applied to the Use of Satellite Images in Global Scale). Thank you for the trust placed in our studies.
General comments:
Authors respond: First of all, we want to thank you and the reviewers for the evaluation of our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to the 2 anonymous reviewers along with your comments. The comments and their replies are shown below in two different colors. We hope you will consider our manuscript for publication in your esteemed journal. The manuscript is original, no part of the manuscript has been published before, nor is any part of it under consideration for publication at another journal. We convey our immense thanks for dedicating your time to this evaluation. For, without doubt, it helped to improve the quality of this manuscript. Thanks.
REVIEWER 1
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out these items. To address this, we extrapolated in every highlighted area as suggested. We convey our immense thanks for dedicating your time to this evaluation. It definitely helped improve the quality of this manuscript. Thanks.
The manuscript analyzes land cover change and water quality in the southern Brazil region using long time series Landsat as well as sentinel data. Overall, the manuscript has some practical value and is consistent with the research interests of SUSTAINABILITY. However, ignoring the limited innovation of this work, the manuscript still has a lot of room for improvement. I recommend that the authors perform a major revision and reconsider this article for publication in SUSTAINABILITY.
Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the items. The entire manuscript has been revised. Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript, which has greatly improved the quality of the manuscript, and thus recommend it for publication in SUSTAINABILITY.
First of all, the manuscript is extremely lacking in methodological details, precision results, and uncertainty analysis regarding land cover classification. How many and what variables did you consider and use in the classifier? The information on field sampling (training) is deficient. How many samples were collected? Where were they collected? Was there any sampling scheme? Same on the accuracy assessment. A standard confusion matrix should be established. How many samples were used? Which was the accuracy of the different classes? More information is needed.
Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the items. The entire manuscript was revised according to the specific recommendations. By solving these problems, we noticed a high improvement in the manuscript. We are grateful for helping us to improve the quality of our manuscript. Thanks.
Secondly, the authors' study deviates from the scientific question. Based on the introduction section, I feel that the authors are trying to emphasize the sustainability of agricultural land, food security. However, only one of the four land cover types in the study area relates to agricultural land and fails to reflect more details about what all the secondary classes of agricultural land in the study area contain. In addition, the authors went on to analyze water quality using Sentinel data, which I felt was somewhat surprising. At the very least, the quality of the agricultural land should be assessed first and foremost, not the quality of the water bodies. I would ask the authors to reconsider and sort out this issue.
Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the items. It is necessary to analyze the water quality together in the manuscript, because the classes used are in an area of direct influence with the water. The area is in an area of constant inspection, where it is possible to safely assess the effectiveness of the public policy aimed at environmental sustainability, as mentioned in the text. Thank you for helping us to improve the quality of our manuscript. Thanks.
Thirdly, I think it is not a wise approach to write the results and discussion together. As of now, the discussion is not sufficient, and I think it should be further strengthened.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. We inform you that a concise review of the manuscript was carried out. Thus, we noticed an improvement in the manuscript. Thank you for helping us to improve the quality of our manuscript. Thanks.
Fourthly, the artwork and resolution of the figures in the manuscript should be improved and enhanced.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. All of figures, were re-formulated. This greatly improved the graphic quality of the manuscript. Thank you for helping us to improve the quality of our manuscript. Thanks.
Specific comments:
*1. Title: Landsat 2, 5, 7, 8 is better to Landsat 2/5/7/8.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. To solve this problem, the recommendation was followed and the title was readjusted as recommended, as pointed out by REVIEWER 2. But in the text this item was corrected according to the description. Thank you for helping to improve the quality of the manuscript's title. Thanks.
*2. Abstract: I think the abstract (the conclusion is also) is missing many important results, so it should be rewritten.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. To solve this problem, the item has been rewritten. Thank you for helping to improve the quality of the manuscript's. Thanks.
*3. Line 31-32: I recommend showing specific evaluation results to illustrate reliability.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. To solve this problem, the item has been rewritten. Thank you for helping to improve the quality of the manuscript's. Thanks.
*4. Line 87: “to measure” should be “To measure”.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. The pointed item has been corrected in the text. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
*5. Remote sensing image data pre-processing methods must be supplemented in 2.2 Methods of data collection
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. To answer this, pre-processing methods were explained. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
*6. Line 158: Table 1, Why is the image coverage in March? How did you considered about it?
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. This problem was solved in the text, justifying the reason for choosing the time series for the months of March, in relation to the analyzed period. Noting that, other images had many shadows of clouds, because the State of Rio Grande do Sul has few clouds in the summer, other periods and very difficult to obtain and properly analyze the landscape with satellite images. This was made clearer in the manuscript text. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
*7. Line 164: Why are you classified into four categories? Which classification system or principle are you basing this on? What are the definitions of these four categories? In addition, the image interpretation signs of different land cover types at different sensors should be shown.
Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the items. We agree. To solve this problem were explained in the text why the supervised classification model occurred in four categories, because they are basic classes of the landscape pointed out in the literature. So the study was based on a supervised classification model (RGB543), this was also explained in the text. The text also explains the image interpretation signals of different types of land cover in different sensors, in relation to the quantity of features. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
*8. Line 165: The amount of clouds in the study area is best shown. Differences in different sensors should be discussed.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. This issue has been resolved in the text, with a better explanation of these pointed items. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
*9. Line 165-166: Why use Gaussian model for classification? As far as I know, Random Forest is currently a robust classification method, so why not consider using RF classifier?
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. We cannot fail to ignore this fact, and this possibility of analysis. In this sense, we suggest in the conclusion in future works, the satellite analysis the use of the Random Forest model for being a model that presents the robust classification method, being able to be compared with the data obtained in this study, with the use of the method of analysis from the Gaussian model. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
*10. Line 183: Why consider so many landscape indices. I feel the reader will get lost in these landscape indices. Could the author please clarify the selection principle and its meaning?
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. We made it clear in the text of the manuscript, which followed a methodological pattern, as pointed out in the literature. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
*11. Line 202: How much cloud coverage? Is it within the acceptable range?
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. To solve this problem, the item was better explained in the text. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
*12. Line 233-386: These paragraphs look like a laundry list. Please try to condense the information to key results and messages.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. The authors do not agree with this note (“laundry list”), but we respect their opinion. We have reviewed and are presenting the results of our study, without them, we understand that our study would not be valid. Respectfully, we appreciate the suggestion. Thanks.
*13. Line 330, 388, 424: These titles are strange to me.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. To solve this problem, the titles mentioned in the manuscript were revised. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
*14. Line 469-473: Accuracy evaluation should be placed in the main body.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. To resolve this issue the pointed item was added to the text as requested. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
*15. Figure 7~9: It is advisable to add statistical items.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. Data were inserted in the figures, as recommended. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
REVIEWER 2
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out these items. To address this, we extrapolated in every highlighted area as suggested. We convey our immense thanks for dedicating your time to this evaluation. It definitely helped improve the quality of this manuscript. Thanks.
This manuscript is trying to present the geospatial analyses to gain fundamental importance on a global scale following emphasis on sustainability. The authors geospatially analyzed images from Landsat 2, 5, 7 and 8 satellites during 1975-2020 to determine changes in land use. They also applied Sentinel-3B OLCI (Ocean 28 Land Color Instrument) images taken in 2019-2021 to assess water resources, based on water turbidity levels (TSM_NN), suspended pollution potential (ADG_443_NN) and the presence of chlorophyll-a (CHL_NN) to temporally monitor the effectiveness of Brazilian legislation currently in force. Although this work on sustainability standards was applied to a hydrographic basin dedicated to agricultural production located in southern Brazil, Landsat 2, 5, 7 and 8 satellite images revealed that land use changes led to an increase in food production and vegetative cover from 1975-2020. However, Sentinel-3B OLCI satellite images taken in the same region in 2019-2021 showed that the waters of the Capinguí Dam reservoir have a high concentration of ADG_443_NN (3,830 m-1 ), CHL_NN (20,290 mg m-3 ) and TSM_NN (100 gm-3 36 ), capable of endangering public health and damaging hydrographic preservation.
Actually, the land use and water quality are two things so that the title of this manuscript should be covered with the two information.
Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the items. It was necessary to analyze the water quality together in the manuscript, because the classes used are in an area of direct influence with the water. The area is in an area of constant inspection, where it is possible to safely assess the effectiveness of the public policy aimed at environmental sustainability, as mentioned in the text. Thank you for helping us to improve the quality of our manuscript. Thanks.
In general, it needs to be improved or revised as below:
1) the title "Geospatial analysis with Landsat 2, 5, 7, 8 and Sentinel-3B OLCI satellites to assess changes in land use over time in southern Brazil" can be changed into to "Geospatial analysis with Landsat series and Sentinel-3B OLCI satellites to assess changes in land use and water quality over time in Brazil";
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. To solve this problem, the recommendation was followed and the title was readjusted as recommended. Thank you for helping to improve the quality of the manuscript's title. Thanks.
2) Figure 1 is not clear and should be made up well;
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. To solve this problem, Figure 1 was again elaborated, with more specific data from the study area. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
3) Figure 4-10 are also not clear and should be made up well;
Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the items. Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 were removed, the data were all described in the text, and we could not get an adequate resolution for these figures. The figures, were adequate, in the sense and express more the results, as requested. Which greatly improved the graphic quality of the manuscript. Thanks.
4) References are fine;
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. Thank you for helping to improve the quality of the manuscript's. Thanks.
More specifically, the water quality parameters with units should be clarified, such as line 504-506 "high concentrations of suspended material on the water surface (3,830 m-1), chlorophyll-a (20,290 mg CHL_NN m-3) and water turbidity (100 (gm-3))". Please also confirm if that the unit of suspended material is m-1 and water turbidity is gm-3?
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. By reviewing all data in accordance with ESA, confirming the units used. We noticed that, in some units, they were corrected in the text, and also demonstrated in the figures. So we noticed an improvement in the manuscript text. Thank you for helping us improve the quality of manuscript writing. Thanks.
____________________________
We also point out that the text was submitted to a specialized professional who is a native English speaker, specializing in translating scientific manuscripts and to an agency specializing in spelling corrections to correct possible spelling errors in the manuscript.
We are very grateful for the invaluable contributions generated by the reviewers, which further improved the quality of the manuscript. Technically, the only word of thanks we can express is sincere Gratitude.
Yours very sincerely,
___________________
Corresponding authors
- Santosh
Researcher ID: https://publons.com/wos-op/researcher/1334197/m-santosh/
Scopus: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=55110642200
&
Alcindo Neckel
Researcher ID: https://publons.com/wos-op/researcher/3831212/alcindo-neckel/
ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alcindo-Neckel
Scopus: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=56973887600
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments to the authors (Round 2):
I have read the author's revision notes. I think the manuscript has not been well improved compared to the first submission. I do not see sufficient revisions in the original text for some key issues, even though they noted that they have been revised. I look forward to seeing the manuscript could be published in Sustainability after Major Revision.
Major:
1. The reliability of the land cover classification results is unknown. Since the authors did not give a clear account about many details in the classifier (including technical process, training samples, input variables, accuracy evaluation, etc.), I cannot determine the accuracy of the classification results. These are important aspects of the peer review that are of concern.
2. The scientific questions are unclear. The manuscript seems to be designed to apply these satellite data rather than to address the scientific question. I read the introduction again and found they contain a great deal of information, but do not seem to be logical enough for articulating the scientific question. In addition, I still think that water quality analysis and land cover are two different things. Although the authors tried to explain it, this did not convince me. Third, I think the authors' intention to analyze the landscape index is not fully stated. Fourth, I feel puzzled about the satellite appearing in the title (3.1-3.5). The title should focus on the analysis key words (Such as landscape metrics, land use change, water quality etc.) rather than the satellite. Why did you delete Figures 3~6?
3. The discussion is an important part of the article, and I think it should be separated from the results. Very often, the value of the article is often found in the discussion.
Minor:
Line 433: Title should be 3.5
References:
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14153580
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14153562
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14143477
Author Response
Dear Editor
Thank you for taking the time to manage this editorial process and for sending us review comments of revision.
We have revised our paper accommodating all the comments. We provide below the point by point reply to the comments.
We reinforce that we are happy with the unanimous recommendation of the reviewers to recommend the manuscript for publication. In this context, the corrections requested by the reviewers were carried out in detail, thus meeting the reviewer suggestion.
We also thank the editors responsible for the theme, and for the publication invitation (Remote Sensing Studies Applied to the Use of Satellite Images in Global Scale). Thank you for the trust placed in our studies.
General comments:
Authors respond: First of all, we want to thank you and the reviewers for the evaluation of our manuscript, for the acceptance of the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to the 1 reviewer. The comments and their replies are shown below in two different colors. We hope you will consider our manuscript for publication in your esteemed journal. The manuscript is original, no part of the manuscript has been published before, nor is any part of it under consideration for publication at another journal. We convey our immense thanks for dedicating your time to this evaluation. For, without doubt, it helped to improve the quality of this manuscript. Thanks.
Comments to the authors (Round 2):
I have read the author's revision notes. I think the manuscript has not been well improved compared to the first submission. I do not see sufficient revisions in the original text for some key issues, even though they noted that they have been revised. I look forward to seeing the manuscript could be published in Sustainability after Major Revision.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out these items. To address this, we extrapolated in every highlighted area as suggested. We convey our immense thanks for dedicating your time to this evaluation. It definitely helped improve the quality of this manuscript. Thanks.
Major:
- The reliability of the land cover classification results is unknown. Since the authors did not give a clear account about many details in the classifier (including technical process, training samples, input variables, accuracy evaluation, etc.), I cannot determine the accuracy of the classification results. These are important aspects of the peer review that are of concern.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. The general value of R² was highlighted in the manuscript text. Thank you for helping to improve the quality of the manuscript's. Thanks.
- The scientific questions are unclear. The manuscript seems to be designed to apply these satellite data rather than to address the scientific question. I read the introduction again and found they contain a great deal of information, but do not seem to be logical enough for articulating the scientific question.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. Again we review, and we disagree with your opinion, but we show all our respect. The authors of this manuscript are assured of the scientific approach and that it is well grounded in the document. But we appreciate your opinion. Thank you for helping to improve the quality of the manuscript's. Thanks.
In addition, I still think that water quality analysis and land cover are two different things. Although the authors tried to explain it, this did not convince me.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. Thank you, we point out that this has already been answered in the manuscript text. Thank you for helping to improve the quality of the manuscript's. Thanks.
Third, I think the authors' intention to analyze the landscape index is not fully stated. Fourth, I feel puzzled about the satellite appearing in the title (3.1-3.5). The title should focus on the analysis key words (Such as landscape metrics, land use change, water quality etc.) rather than the satellite.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. To solve this problem, the titles indicated were modified according to the recommendation. Thank you for helping to improve the quality of the manuscript's. Thanks.
Why did you delete Figures 3~6?
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. Figures 3-6 were excluded in order to meet the recommendations of the other reviewer. Thank you for helping to improve the quality of the manuscript's. Thanks.
- The discussion is an important part of the article, and I think it should be separated from the results. Very often, the value of the article is often found in the discussion.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. To resolve this issue, further discussions were entered into the manuscript. Thank you for helping to improve the quality of the manuscript's. Thanks.
Minor:
Line 433: Title should be 3.5
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out the item. The pointed item has been corrected in the text. Thank you for helping to improve the quality of the manuscript's. Thanks.
References:
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14153580
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14153562
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14143477
Authors respond: Thanks for pointing out the references, they helped to improve the written work. Thank you for helping to improve the quality of the manuscript's. Thanks.
Authors respond: We also insert this reference that we think is relevant:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128968
____________________________
We also point out that the text was submitted to a specialized professional who is a native English speaker, specializing in translating scientific manuscripts and to an agency specializing in spelling corrections to correct possible spelling errors in the manuscript.
We are very grateful for the invaluable contributions generated by the reviewers, which further improved the quality of the manuscript. Technically, the only word of thanks we can express is sincere Gratitude.
Yours very sincerely,
___________________
Corresponding authors
- Santosh
Researcher ID: https://publons.com/wos-op/researcher/1334197/m-santosh/
Scopus: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=55110642200
&
Alcindo Neckel
Researcher ID: https://publons.com/wos-op/researcher/3831212/alcindo-neckel/
ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alcindo-Neckel
Scopus: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=56973887600
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is agreed to be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for accepting the manuscript
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your reply. I recommend using scientific notation for numbers (Line 143&145&148, Line 344~346: 111,283,200 m²& $3,071,707,032& 36,325,313 m²& 39,323,700 m², etc.). I have no further comments if the authors address the reviewers' concerns according to the review reports.
Author Response
Dear Editor
Thank you for taking the time to manage this editorial process and for sending us review comments of revision.
We have revised our paper accommodating all the comments. We provide below the point by point reply to the comments.
We reinforce that we are happy with the unanimous recommendation of the reviewers to recommend the manuscript for publication. In this context, the corrections requested by the reviewers were carried out in detail, thus meeting the reviewer suggestion.
We also thank the editors responsible for the theme, and for the publication invitation (Remote Sensing Studies Applied to the Use of Satellite Images in Global Scale). Thank you for the trust placed in our studies.
General comments:
Authors respond: First of all, we want to thank you and the reviewers for the evaluation of our manuscript, for the acceptance of the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to the 1 reviewer. The comments and their replies are shown below in two different colors. We hope you will consider our manuscript for publication in your esteemed journal. The manuscript is original, no part of the manuscript has been published before, nor is any part of it under consideration for publication at another journal. We convey our immense thanks for dedicating your time to this evaluation. For, without doubt, it helped to improve the quality of this manuscript. Thanks.
Comments to the authors (Round 3):
Thank you for your reply. I recommend using scientific notation for numbers (Line 143&145&148, Line 344~346: 111,283,200 m²& $3,071,707,032& 36,325,313 m²& 39,323,700 m², etc.). I have no further comments if the authors address the reviewers' concerns according to the review reports.
Authors respond: Thank you for pointing out these items. To resolve this, corrections to the text of the manuscript were made as indicated. We convey our immense thanks for dedicating your time to this evaluation. It definitely helped improve the quality of this manuscript. Thanks.
____________________________
We also point out that the text was submitted to a specialized professional who is a native English speaker, specializing in translating scientific manuscripts and to an agency specializing in spelling corrections to correct possible spelling errors in the manuscript.
We are very grateful for the invaluable contributions generated by the reviewers, which further improved the quality of the manuscript. Technically, the only word of thanks we can express is sincere Gratitude.
Yours very sincerely,
___________________
Corresponding authors
- Santosh
Researcher ID: https://publons.com/wos-op/researcher/1334197/m-santosh/
Scopus: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=55110642200
&
Alcindo Neckel
Researcher ID: https://publons.com/wos-op/researcher/3831212/alcindo-neckel/
ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alcindo-Neckel
Scopus: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=56973887600
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
