Integrated Use of Synthetic Aperture Radar and Optical Data in Mapping Native Vegetation: A Study in a Transitional Brazilian Cerrado–Atlantic Forest Interface

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

The manuscript “Integrated use of SAR and Optical data in mapping native vegetation: a study in a transitional Brazilian Cerrado-Atlantic Forest interface” compares the accuracy of RF classifier using Sentinel SAR or optical bands information or information from both sources for LULC classification in a 230 km2 area in Sao Paulo. The methods description should be improved. The discussion focusses on SAR variables, but does not analyse why the inclusion of SAR didn’t significantly improve RF performance in terms of OA for most classes (C3 only clearly outperform for urban class). The results do not support the use of SAR as an alternative for LULC classification in tropical areas. Perhaps the analysis of data sets with different atmospheric conditions may support the use of SAR information.

Specific comments

P2L46: “is a crucial initial step in the analyzing and monitoring” -> “is a crucial initial step in analyzing and monitoring”

P5L185: “The digital elevation model (DEM) obtained free of charge” -> “The digital elevation model (DEM) was obtained free of charge”

P6L197: Correct “(σ_0VH & σ_0VV)”

Eq. 1: The Thermal Noise Removal used method is not clear in Eq. 1

Eq2 and 3: Explain what means T

Eq 5: In which units are S1 and S2 given?

P7L250: How were these validation samples distributed by class?

P8L252-254: Did you use RF to classify the pixels? Explain how was LULC map derived.

P8L262-264 and P13L357: Which samples were used in Figure 3 (10 training samples per class or 37 validation samples)?

Figure 4: C3 instead C2 in the legend. Using the same series for C1 and C2 is confusing

P12L328-329: “and the region comprising the Itirapina Ecological Station that composed of vegetation characteristic of the savannah and Brazilian Cerrado biome” -> “and the region comprising the Itirapina Ecological Station, composed of vegetation characteristic of the savannah and Brazilian Cerrado biome”

P14L385: field -> agriculture?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language should be revised

Author Response

Please check the docx

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your manuscript. Below are my comments and suggestions to help improve your work:

While the research structure and methodology are solid, the originality of the study is somewhat limited. The method used, although correctly referenced, is not novel and has been previously applied. The main novelty lies in its application to the specific region of the transitional Brazilian Cerrado-Atlantic Forest interface, as stated in the title.

The manuscript is well-presented and organized, which aids in the clarity of your findings.

Your research is scientifically sound, and the methods are appropriately applied and well-explained.

The study holds interest primarily for those focused on regional studies.

Overall, the merit of the manuscript is average, primarily due to the limited novelty of the methodology used.

Thank you for your effort, and I look forward to seeing the revised version.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A minor review of the language would be beneficial. Some words are misplaced, such as in line 408 ("demonstrated differences between in pre-processing attributes" – the word "in" seems misplaced). Additionally, certain words, while not incorrect, are unusual and could be rephrased for clarity. For example:

- Line 256: "the urban area class evidenced the highest separability" – consider rephrasing "evidenced."

- Line 189: "The outline of the hydrographic basin was attained from DEM to demarcate the study area" – consider rephrasing "demarcate."

These are just some examples, so I recommend an overall language check

Addressing these issues will enhance the readability and precision of your manuscript.

Author Response

Please check the docx

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

Although most specific concerns have been addressed in the revised version, the methods section must be improved. The paper should demonstrate the originality of the method developed and advantages with respect other approaches in the literature.

Specific comments

P6L210-218 and Eq. 1: Improve the explanation of transformation of digital numbers to backscatter values conversion (How is A calculated? Do you use A_s?) and thermal denoising. Add “=” to Eq. 1

P7L258: Than -> then

P8L275-277: Was the LULC map derived from RF classification or through visual interpretation? It is not clear.

P8L280: Transition matrix or confusion matrix?

P14L415-417: Please, provide references

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language should be revised

Author Response

Please, look at the .docx!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx