The Potential of Moonlight Remote Sensing: A Systematic Assessment with Multi-Source Nightlight Remote Sensing Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments:

1. There are some English grammar errors. For example, in line 15, 41, 53, 66, 156 and so on. Please give a more detailed modification and check.

 

2. There are a lot of first-occurrence acronyms in line 74 and 74.

 

3. What are the specific differences between the nightlight remote sensing, night-light remote sensing, nighttime remote sensing and moonlight remote sensing?

 

4. In the section 3.1.2, the low-light suburban areas of the Calgary were selected within the brightness values lower than 35 for red, 30 for yellow and 25 for blue. So, there should be no images with the brightness values higher than 50. But then in the section 3.1.3, the segmentation scales of ISS images were set as 50 for the Calgary image. Does that mean the multi-resolution image segmentation was not done in Calgary?

 

5. What is the difference between nighttime classification and daytime classification during the whole process? For example, the usage of the RF algorithm or the eCognition Developer 64 9.01 software?

 

6. Compared with the traditional daytime optical sensors, what are the advantages of the land surface classification using the low-light images in this study?

 

7. In the abstract there is neither a statement of methods nor any specific results about the work. But too much contexts are used to introduce the background. And in the line 25 and 26, the authors give an expectation of moonlight remote sensing in the temporal coverage, but the whole article especially the discussion pays more attention to the spectral resolution and spatial resolution.

 

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I want to thank he authors for their contribution to innovative remote sensing.

 

The article can be improved by describing the direct Goals of the project, and outlining these goals. The same outline can be used to organize the work efforts performed and the results obtained. Each result will have a chek-box to indicate the level of completion of the goals and reliability of the conclusion of "success"

Author Response

Thanks for the very constructive suggestion. We have reorganized the manuscript accordingly to make the text logically more consistent.

Reviewer 3 Report

Sorry, I am not familiar with the topic of this paper, and thus I cannot evaluate the contribution and innovation  of this paper. However, after a cursory reading of the paper, I found the topic is interesting and important, but the English description is bad, which brings great difficulty for reader's reading. I suggest the authors carefully revise and rewrite the manuscript, and resubmit it.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the careful and thorough review of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. We have revised and rewritten the manuscript. We have revised our paper accordingly and rewritten many texts to make the description more precise and easier to understand.