Framework for Regional to Global Extension of Optical Water Types for Remote Sensing of Optically Complex Transitional Water Bodies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of “Framework for regional to global extension of Optical Water 2 Types for remote sensing of optically complex transitional water bodies”

The manuscript titled ‘Framework for regional to global extension of Optical Water Types for remote sensing of optically complex transitional water bodies’ proposed an OWT set with the fuzzy clustering method for the transitional water bodies. The study topic is important in aquatic remote sensing. However, there are several concerns that the authors need to address.

(1) Section 2.1: Suggest to draw a flow chart to summary the work.

(2) Section 2.4: In-situ hyperspectral data and satellite multispectral data were used to build the training data. The challenge is to minimize the disparity between them and ensure the clustering accuracy. What method were used?

(3) Line 181-184: many bands were excluded. Which band were retained? In addition, how to define the ‘heavily affect’?

(4) Table 2: Table 2 has listed but not mentioned in the context.

(5) Section 2.7 is hard to understanding. Suggest to reorganized the content.

 

(6) Suggest to summary the water quality range of the in-situ data.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is fine.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of “Framework for regional to global extension of Optical Water 2 Types for remote sensing of optically complex transitional water bodies”

 

The paper under review presents a computational method for water type classification using two different sensor types (OLCI and MSI) to provide input data for training and machine learning classification.  The paper is well-written, comprehensive, and fully explanatory.  The references also appear to fully cover the subject.

The actual mechanics and details of the fuzzy clustering method are beyond my capability to evaluate. The training set is well chosen to include a wide range of optical water types, and the application of the method to the case study region shows acceptable and expected results. Thus, the method appears to be valid and to provide results that will be useful for the global application of this optical water type classification.

Author Response

Please see attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting and well-developed study on Optical Water Type (OWT) classification for OLCI and MSI transitional complex waters. The strength of the work lies not in the methods used, which have been extensively explored in previous research, but in the application to several case studies and the attempt to achieve pan-regional classification. However, I have identified several issues in the formatting and presentation that warrant a recommendation for revision:

Although an additive shift was applied to the negative values before the log transformation, there is no explanation for how the values were derived. Why were 0.015 for OLCI and 0.0003 for MSI chosen? It would be helpful to provide a reference or rationale for these specific values.

The number of clusters identified in some cases appears excessive, with differences more in magnitude than in shape. The authors might consider simplifying the clustering, such as in the MSI data for Venice or MSI OWT3 and OWT4 in the Danube, to see if the results remain meaningful.

For the OWT cluster figures (e.g., Figures 3 and 6), it would be helpful to fix the y-axis to a specific min-max range or, better yet, remove the individual clusters and present only the stacked cluster data. I think this will improve readability.

Figure 4 is repeated four times across pages 10-12, Figure 8 is repeated three times on pages 15 and 17, and Figure 9 is also repeated three times. 

The discussion lacks comparisons with previous works and does not address how to solve existing issues. Instead, it reads more like a conclusion. It would be beneficial to expand this section to include critical analysis and contextual comparisons with related studies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the concerns have been solved, and suggest to be accecpt.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is ok.