Determination of Bayesian Cramér–Rao Bounds for Estimating Uncertainties in the Bio-Optical Properties of the Water Column, the Seabed Depth and Composition in a Coastal Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the paper is interesting and could be of considerable use for the scientific community. Precisely for this reason, I believe it is necessary for the authors to improve the article in some points to make it more complete and to avoid doubts regarding the results obtained.

- Although it is not the main focus of the paper, I believe that the lack of data relating to the IOP and WQP of the waters and the atmospheric conditions synchronous with the satellite acquisitions limits the work a bit. I understand that it is not easy to retrieve this information, but the authors should make this lack explicit in the text. Unfortunately, even the use of images in different periods makes it difficult to understand how seasonal factors may have conditioned the final results.

- It is not entirely clear the choice of two different sets of spectral signatures of the benthic habitat for the two different images. Based on what the authors use these sets? 

By comparing the signatures used (particularly for the sand) in the paper with respect to the source of the publication mentioned by the authors, one notices very marked differences. Why? Where do the spectral signatures in figure 4 and figure 7 come from? The signatures shown in Minghelli's paper (cit. 57) are very different. In figure 7 the authors write Reflectance in %, I think it is an error, check and standardize with figure 4 by correctly indicating the quantities.

- I suggest the authors to add in the paper the spectral signatures of PRISMA and DESIS for the different types of benthic habitats, in fact I believe that this figure could be very useful for the readers.

- The authors use the spectral range between 420 and 700nm, why didn't they extend the spectral range used to the first NIR bands? I believe that for lower depths the availability of some bands in the NIR region would have improved the analysis, particularly in the presence of algae and seagrasses.

- Since the paper uses PRISMA and DESIS images, I suggest the authors to mention in the introduction scientific publications related to the use of PRISMA and DESIS in the aquatic environment.

- In Figure 2b the authors should specify whether the bathymetric profile is an average of the characteristics of the study area or if it is only an example. I believe that more robust information about bathymetry is important, as the authors assume that depth is constant within the pixel. This assumption is valid if the study area actually has this characteristic and therefore the authors should make this information more explicit.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your help to improve the manuscript.

Please find the rattachement.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments attached. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your help to improve the manuscript.

Please see the attachement.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have responded to all requests for revisions, making the paper more correct and easier to understand. 

I believe that, with the review carried out, the paper is publishable.