Comparison of Satellite Platform for Mapping the Distribution of Mauritius Thorn (Caesalpinia decapetala) and River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) in the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title is very interesting, however many of the topics in the manuscript were not elucidated well. I have so many questions in the pdf file.  Major points of the study presented is (1) needs improved organization and narration of the story, (2) improved and well justified the choice of designs or methods, (3) the results that focuses only on the accuracy while other factors such as choices of algorithms, assumptions, nature of invasive species, mapping predictors also need to be explored.  This study is interesting but it lacks of story of lessons learned that can provide insights for other researchers . 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1, MDPI-Remote sensing paper.

We thank you and appreciate you for your time in reviewing our paper and giving us additional valuable feedback. On behalf of my co-authors, we very much appreciate the time and effort you have put into your comments on our manuscript (remotesensing-2307727). Your reviews are most helpful. We have revised the manuscript wherever possible, addressing the suggestions raised. We have highlighted all amendments with track changes in the revised manuscript version. Our responses are in the same order as the comments raised by the reviewers. We hope our responses are adequate for publishing our MDPI-Remote sensing paper.

Sincerely yours,

Farai Dondofema

REVIEWER 1

Reviewer 1: the content did not deeply present and discuss the nature, potentials and weakness of each platform for IASP, nor the reasoning. the content fits more on comparison of IASP mapping

Response: Thank you. Changed the title to “Comparison of Selecting the best satellite platform for monitoring mapping the distribution of Mauritius Thorn (Caesalpinia decapetala) and River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) in the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve” Line 1-5.

Reviewer 1: how the trade-off can better be understood using a framework? what criteria to look at? and why?

Response: Thank you. I have included Figure 1, which illustrates the trade-offs of resolutions [Line 116] I have also added the source 23.

Reviewer 1: can this be elaborated? about each types of models and tolerance?  tolerance to what?

Response: Thank you. Corrected the issue of tolerance Line 126-127. The types of models are introduced from Line 126-133

Reviewer 1: I believe that a paragraph focusing on IAPS alone would be a good story for the paper.  It can higlights the types of IASP, nature and mechanism of invasion, and how RS can see this ..the theoretical / physical understanding

Response: Thank you. Lines 134 to 143 is a paragraph presenting information about IAPS

Reviewer 1: There should be a paragraph summarizing all the research gaps supported by the findings from literature review, and objectives of the study related to the existing gaps

Response: Thank you. Added paragraph Lines 159-167.

Reviewer 1: the legend in Fig 3,4 5 do not match precisely with these.  are sites in fig 3, 4 5 different? if yes, they should appear and clearly indicated in study area overview

Response: Thank you.  Corrected lines 366-368, 380-382 and 402 -404.

Reviewer 1: if the purpose is to select the best platform, why only use high res images of these? any consideration based on findings from literature?

Response: Thank you. Noted; I, however, found that the Worldview and Aerial photos, which had a higher spatial resolution, did not do as well as the SPOT 6 images.

Reviewer 1: how the buffer and core regions were delineated? source? or using certain criteria?

Response: Thank you. The classification of the VBR was done by the Limpopo Economic Development and Tourism Agency (LEDET). I have given a reference for the source.

Reviewer 1: any consideration why used supervised class?

Response: Thank you. Lines 272 – 274 indicate the difference between the two classification processes. Supervised classification was selected because of its use of ground truth data in the form of training sites.

Reviewer 1: version? reference>?

Response: Thank you. Information included in lines 303-305

Reviewer 1: how did the training sites were created? what criteria?

Response: Thank you. The training site were collected during the field visits using GPS units.

Reviewer 1: please justify the decency  of this number for an area with more than 100km x 100km?

Response: Thank you. The 175 sites were areas that could be accessed within the time period and considering the budgetary constraints.

Reviewer 1: please describe what test this is and how a reader can find it more when needed?

Response: Thank you. Added a few sentences explaining the McNemar test Lines 396-398

Reviewer 1: road was yellow colored in the legend, but in northern part and south west in 5c, there area spots or area colored with also yellow. are these also road? I was assuming that roads are line-like in maps

Response: Thank you. Noted. The classification was picking up some of the gravel road network within the area.

Reviewer 1: there is a big portion of unclassified areas,  more than 20%  what can possibly cause this?

Response: Thank you. The area is highly mountainous I suspect some of the unclassified pixels are coming from the shadows of the mountain cliffs.

Reviewer 1: based on what? the accuracy in mapping the species types?

Response: Thank you. Added a few sentences explaining the basis. Lines 449-451

Reviewer 1: many of these points in this paragraph were not linked to findings from the study are, this is more like a review study

Response: Thank you. I have removed the sections.

Reviewer 1: lessons learned from the study was not clearly presented for the readers

Response: Thank you.  I have added a paragraph to present some of the lessons learnt Lines 468-472

Reviewer 1: and how these were concluded based on the findings in this study>

Response: Thank you. Edited paragraph lines 553 - 560

Reviewer 1: in what way the methods that can and cannot be carried out in this study and their implications?

Response: Thank you. Added a sentence Lines 536-537

Reviewer 1: how types of mapping algorithm can play a role? in addition to nature of IASP?

Response: Thank you. Selecting a different classification algorithm will produce different levels of accuracy, which might be higher or lower than the ones produced by the SAM classifier algorithm.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for awarding me the opportunity to review this paper. The approach used in the paper is appropriate with no major flaws identified during the review. The authors can attend to a few edits before the paper can be accepted for publication.

- The first abstract sentence is hanging with no meaningful context and is incomplete.

- Authors must provide a concluding statement in the abstract and convincingly show how their research will be impactful globally.

- The introduction can be improved by allowing a continuous storyline. Although the authors have opted for subsections, it is not easy to follow the storyline as a manuscript rather than a Thesis presentation.

- Spelling check on line 59 "used' instead of "sued"

- Line 166 kindly verify "within the thesis"

- Figures 3,4,5 and 6 captions need to be improved. To my eyes and understanding, what the authors refer as dots look like polygons. I suggest they refer to them as polygons. Additionally, the captions need to be rephrased. The statements sound as if a, b, and c all relate to representing validation points which in the paper's context must only be for a). This must be addressed.

- I am not sure of the need for double captioning the figures, i.e, one embedded in the image and a second caption in the text. I would suggest the authors remove the image caption and retain the one in the text.

- The authors need to justify in the methodology why they opted for the SAM. They have only provided that it is the best among the ones provided in ENVI in which case the second question would be why they restricted themselves only to Envi software yet there are several other algorithms that perform similar or better than SAM provided in open source software as well.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2, MDPI-Remote sensing paper.

We thank you and appreciate you for your time in reviewing our paper and giving us additional valuable feedback. On behalf of my co-authors, we very much appreciate the time and effort you have put into your comments on our manuscript (remotesensing-2307727). Your reviews are most helpful. We have revised the manuscript wherever possible, addressing the suggestions raised. We have highlighted all amendments with track changes in the revised manuscript version. Our responses are in the same order as the comments raised by the reviewers. We hope our responses are adequate for publishing our MDPI-Remote sensing paper.

Sincerely yours,

Farai Dondofema

 

REVIEWER 2

Reviewer 1: Thank you for awarding me the opportunity to review this paper. The approach used in the paper is appropriate with no major flaws identified during the review. The authors can attend to a few edits before the paper can be accepted for publication.

Response: Thank you.

Reviewer 2: The first abstract sentence is hanging with no meaningful context and is incomplete.

Response: Thank you. Added some text and context to the sentence (Line 17 & 18)

Reviewer 2: Authors must provide a concluding statement in the abstract and convincingly show how their research will be impactful globally.

Response: Thank you. We have included a concluding statement (Line 30 to 32)

Reviewer 2: The introduction can be improved by allowing a continuous storyline. Although the authors have opted for subsections, it is challenging to follow the storyline as a manuscript rather than a Thesis presentation.

Response: Thank you. Noted.

Reviewer 2: Spelling check on line 59 "used' instead of "sued"

Response: Thank you. Corrected line 61

Reviewer 2: Line 166 kindly verify "within the thesis"

Response: Thank you. Corrected removed “within thesis’ line 196

Reviewer 2: Figures 3,4,5 and 6 captions need to be improved. To my eyes and understanding, what the authors refer as dots look like polygons. I suggest they refer to them as polygons. Additionally, the captions need to be rephrased. The statements sound as if a, b, and c all relate to representing validation points which in the paper's context must only be for a). This must be addressed.

Response: Thank you. Corrected to “polygons lines 368, 382 and 406. The statement of validation was corrected in lines 368-370, 382-384 and 406-408

Reviewer 2: I am not sure of the need for double captioning the figures, i.e, one embedded in the image and a second caption in the text. I would suggest the authors remove the image caption and retain the one in the text.

Response: Thank you. Removed caption lines 367, 381 and 382

Reviewer 2: The authors need to justify in the methodology why they opted for the SAM. They have only provided that it is the best among the ones provided in ENVI in which case the second question would be why they restricted themselves only to Envi software yet there are several other algorithms that perform similar or better than SAM provided in open source software as well.

Response: Thank you. Added justification for selecting SAM Lines 297 – 300 and ref 53.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

A harmonization of aerial imagery products, Digital Globe Worldview and SPOT 6 should have been carried out.

Reviewing the first paragraph of the discussion is not the place to state the objective, but to discuss the results.

The discussion has only one bibliographical reference, which is very poor.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3, MDPI-Remote sensing paper.

We thank you and appreciate you for your time in reviewing our paper and giving us additional valuable feedback. On behalf of my co-authors, we very much appreciate the time and effort you have put into your comments on our manuscript (remotesensing-2307727). Your reviews are most helpful. We have revised the manuscript wherever possible, addressing the suggestions raised. We have highlighted all amendments with track changes in the revised manuscript version. Our responses are in the same order as the comments raised by the reviewers. We hope our responses are adequate for publishing our MDPI-Remote sensing paper.

Sincerely yours,

Farai Dondofema

 

REVIEWER 3

Reviewer 3: A harmonization of aerial imagery products, Digital Globe Worldview and SPOT 6 should have been carried out.

Response: Thank you. Harmonisation was not used in this process because the CDI Aerial photos had a coarse spectral resolution, unlike the Worldview and SPOT 6 images. Including them in harmonisation would lead to loss of the spectral information in the resultant image.

Reviewer 3: Reviewing the first paragraph of the discussion is not the place to state the objective, but to discuss the results.

Response: Thank you. We have removed the objective from the discussion. Lines 442 – 444.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

No comments, I would like to see this paper published