Next Article in Journal
Remotely Sensed Spatiotemporal Variation in Crude Protein of Shortgrass Steppe Forage
Next Article in Special Issue
Distinguishing Algal Blooms from Aquatic Vegetation in Chinese Lakes Using Sentinel 2 Image
Previous Article in Journal
Semantic Segmentation of Metoceanic Processes Using SAR Observations and Deep Learning
Previous Article in Special Issue
SRSe-Net: Super-Resolution-Based Semantic Segmentation Network for Green Tide Extraction
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Long-Term Temporal and Spatial Monitoring of Cladophora Blooms in Qinghai Lake Based on Multi-Source Remote Sensing Images

Remote Sens. 2022, 14(4), 853; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14040853
by Hongyu Duan 1, Xiaojun Yao 1,*, Dahong Zhang 2, Huian Jin 1,3 and Qixin Wei 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Remote Sens. 2022, 14(4), 853; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14040853
Submission received: 18 November 2021 / Revised: 26 January 2022 / Accepted: 27 January 2022 / Published: 11 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remote Sensing for Monitoring Harmful Algal Blooms)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

please see the word document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We have revised the manuscript as much as possible, please see the word document for specific comments. We hope you can provide new comments or suggestions on the manuscript, thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

17 Floating Cladophora Blooms; consider that it is not a very well-known event it is better to remind it within the paper

23 have you forgotten 2020, if not you’d modifiy the dates at line 17

The use of UAV is cited in the abstract and in the Material and Methods. No mention in the abstract. Maybe you should say something about the use of UAV eventually also in sea environment or satellite images for other ends.

112 I shouldn’use double parenthesis: NO (aaa (b)); (bbb) (hhh); (

)

Fig 1 doesn’t show where the lake is. The two lateral images don’t give any contribute

Fig 3 I understand what you mean, but at this scale it difficult to read

Table 2 you should show where these regions are on the map. Profportion?

4.1.1 and 4.2.1 you should explain better and maybe show some pattern evolution or some table with surface changes

4.2 seems smaller than 4.2.1. See hierarchy of chapters: dimension, italic …

Figure 6 it I difficult to understand if we don’t know where the regions are

359 undercomposed

Figure 8 it is difficult to follow

Within the paper I lost UAV

Driving forces could be explained better and with little order more

Author Response

We have revised the manuscript as much as possible, please see the word document for specific comments. We hope you can provide new comments or suggestions on the manuscript, thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

Thank you for your detailed answers to my questions. Based on the cover letter and manuscript you provided to me, a few minor revisions are list below:

  • For lines 207 and 226 of the manuscript, there is a line break, so please check the manuscript carefully.
  • In question 2 of the cover letter, you proposed to add landsat ETM and sentinel-1 SAR image data while using Landsat TM and sentinel-2 MSI, but there is no content about sentinel-1 SAR image data in the manuscript, is it a mistake of the author?
  • "Section 3.2.3 Validation" and "Section 5.1 Accuracy and consistency evaluation" are repeated, suggest the author to revise the structure.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your support and help in our work. 

  1. We have carefully checked for line breaks.
  2. The application of Sentinel-1 SAR images was an idea we had, but it didn't materialize later. And forgetting to remove it in COVER LETTER is the result of our carelessness. I am sorry!
  3. Our original idea here was to have a introduction in the Methods section, and to present the results mainly in the discussion section. But this may create an impression of repetition for the reader. We appreciate your comments and have removed "Validation" from the Methods section and moved all descriptions to the Discussion section.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper can be published in the present form

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your support and help in our work!

Best wishes for you!

Back to TopTop