A Review of Ocean Color Algorithms to Detect Trichodesmium Oceanic Blooms and Quantify Chlorophyll Concentration in Shallow Coral Lagoons of South Pacific Archipelagos
, Andra Whiteside 1,2, Jing Tan 3, Guillaume Wattelez 4, Hiroshi Murakami 5, Rémi Andréoli 6, Jérôme Lefèvre 7, Rüdiger Röttgers 8, Awnesh Singh 2 and Robert Frouin 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work was done with high quality and touches on the topical issue of remote sensing and oceanology. However, there are some small comments and recommendations on the text.
1) Why Lines 43, 102, 423 and etc. are blue? Please format the article according to the template of the journal.
2) Line 85 or 105 «different types of Case 1 and Case 2 waters» it is necessary to provide a brief definition and distinction of water types, as well as provide the necessary references.
3) Line 55 «[18] have stated that widespread transport of volcanic ash may supply the nutrients 56 not only locally around source islands but also within the wider Western South Pacific, accompanied 57 by phytoplankton response» sorry, but this is the wrong beginning of the sentence, it might be better «In Ref.[18]…»
4) Line 66-67 «Discriminating diazotrophic blooms is a great challenge [12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23] for carbon 67 and nitrogen fluxes estimates in the ocean», it took me a long time to jump on the links, please provide more information about these algorithms (1-2 sentences for each), this will help make the Introduction section more presentable.
5) Lines 86-93 the name of the picture is too long, I advise you to provide text before the picture and link to it. Shorten the caption. Uncomfortable to read. The same applies to most figures 2, 3 and 4, 10.
6) The structure of the work is not clear. It is necessary to arrange the text by sections required in this journal. Is it very difficult to determine what data was used? What are the tools and techniques for measuring field data? The "Tools and Methods" section is required. If I'm not mistaken, according to the requirements of the journal, the sections "Results" and "Discussion" are required. I did not see any of them in this text. I advise authors to structure their text into sections.
7) «Final remarks» should be «Conclusions».
Conclusion: the semantic message of the work is very interesting and strong, but the presentation of the article remains weak. The authors need to do a lot of work to change the structure of the article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The work is a review of the results obtained by the authors in the course of many years of ocean color and bio-optical research into regions in the Southwest Tropical Pacific. The results of development, validation and application of a number of regional bio-optical algorithms are shown. Further research prospects are discussed. This overview should be useful for researchers interested in New Caledonia, Vanuatu, Fiji and Tonga Archipelagos regions.
The review is quite complete, the references section includes almost 100 items. Previously obtained results are illustrated by many figures, adopted from original works. As a wish, it is worth noting the correction of some typos.
It is necessary to correct a number of typographical errors in the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript summarizes ocean color methods and algorithms, highlighting their effectiveness and limitations in the Southwest Tropical Pacific (SWTP) region. Although labeled as an article, unfortunately, it does not present any original research or substantial new information. The title is misleading and does not match the manuscript's content, and the abstract is vaguely written. The manuscript reads like a collection of summaries of several papers and ideas needing a clear message. I appreciate the considerable effort in collecting the field IOP, AOP, and pigment datasets. However, a more direct presentation of data with specific objectives is highly needed. Below are a few minor comments that could help the authors revise the manuscript.
- There are so many abbreviations that authors have yet to mention what they stand for. A few examples are SGLI, apg, RPD, NC, ELNC, and several algorithm abbreviations, to name a few. Abrupt abbreviations in an article are an apparent distraction.
- Figure 3. Figure legends are not legible on printed paper. The wavelength range from 650-900 nm is presented as near-infrared. NIR starts at 700 nm.
- Line 175: QAA is grouped as a semi-analytical algorithm contrary to its name - quasi analytical
- Line 212: The term "candidate spectra" appears abruptly!
- Considering the article type, Figures 4 to 14 are unnecessary as those have been adopted from other sources.
The English language is acceptable, although the manuscript requires a thorough review to improve the clarity and flow of information. Dropping the use of abbreviations could improve the readability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All comments have been taken into account, the authors have done a great job and I believe that the article can be published.
Kind Regards and Good Luck!
