Methods to Improve the Accuracy and Robustness of Satellite-Derived Bathymetry through Processing of Optically Deep Waters
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comments:
The paper presents an interesting and valuable method for improving satellite-derived bathymetry (SDB) by optimizing the selection and processing of optical deep-water areas used for model training. The proposed workflow of using global bathymetry data to identify potential deep-water areas, and applying sun glint correction to stabilize their optical properties is logical and well-motivated. The objectives are clearly stated, the methodology is sound, and the results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach through quantitative accuracy assessments and comparisons. The paper is well-structured and written. The study provides a useful framework and guidance for selecting appropriate deep water training data to derive more robust SDB models, particularly in challenging conditions with sun glint contamination. This could significantly aid practical applications of SDB.
Specific comments:
1. Abstract: Concisely summarizes the key elements, but some details could be expanded. For example, specifying the locations of the two study areas, the datasets used, and quantifying the accuracy improvements from the proposed method.
2. Introduction: Provides good context and motivation. The scope and novelty compared to prior works could be highlighted more.
3. Section 2.2: Should note the spatial resolution of the Sentinel-2 bands used.
4. Section 2.5.3: The criteria for deep water area selection are clearly explained. Some quantitative thresholds could be specified, e.g., minimum depth.
5. Section 3: The analysis and results are presented in a logical flow and well supported by quantitative accuracy metrics as well as visualizations. The impact of the proposed approach is demonstrated clearly.
6. Section 4.2: The experiment to compare with optimal manual sample selection further validates the effectiveness of the sun glint correction method. This is an important outcome.
7. Conclusions: Summarizes the key findings and implications well. The contributions and limitations could be discussed more.
Minor comments:
1. Some minor typos to check throughout, e.g. inconsistent capitalization of methods like "DBSCAN".
2. Figure quality could be improved in some cases, with higher resolution or smoother interpolation.
3. The explanation of Figures 5 and 14 could be expanded slightly.
4. References are comprehensive and properly cited throughout.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The manuscript applies methods to improve the accuracy and robustness of satellite-derived bathymetry by processing optically deep waters using Sentinel-2 and ICESat-2 data.
The present study will be useful for applications in the field of river bathymetry if coupled with hydrodynamic modeling. Mentioning the applicability of river bathymetry in the conclusion section would likely be helpful to researchers in the related field.
The paper effectively presents the application and concludes appropriately.
*Need to fix section numbers as well.
Best regards,
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is well-structured, highly detailed, and well-written. It can be of significant interest to the relevant scientific community as it provides advancements in the use of Satellite-Derived Bathymetry techniques. In my opinion, the article can be considered for publication in Remote Sensing after a minor review.
Comments:
- Shouldn't it be 'bathymetry' instead of 'topography' when referring to shallow water areas? please revise it throughout the manuscript
- Lines 56-86: This paragraph is too long. Please consider splitting it
- The section on study areas should be moved to the introduction as subsection 1.1
- Lines 150-153: Could you quantify the potential impact on the results? Additionally, could you offer a more detailed explanation regarding its negligible effect?
- In the Materials and Methods section, I suggest not specifying subsections as '2.5 methods' followed by further subdivisions. Rather, continue with the numbered subsections directly, such as 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, and 2.9
- Line 198: Capital letter is missing
- Line 347: Are methods being described in the Results section? Perhaps they should be appropriately relocated to the Methods section
- Figure 4: A space is missing in the red scatter label in the legend
- Figure 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 14: The text within these figures is difficult to read. Therefore, either the figures or the text need to be significantly enlarged
- Lines 522-536: The explanations provided in this paragraph should be relocated to the Materials and Methods section
- Figure 12 should be placed after its first mention in the text, not before
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
