Rapid Assessment of Landslide Dynamics by UAV-RTK Repeated Surveys Using Ground Targets: The Ca’ Lita Landslide (Northern Apennines, Italy)
, Marco Mulas 2, Giovanni Bertolini 3 and Alessandro Corsini 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA brief summary: In the publication, the authors consider and investigate the possibility of using UAVs for landslide monitoring. Due to the rapid development of UAVs, this area of research is quite relevant and important. The proposed assessment algorithm is quite new and interesting.
General concept comments: In general, the manuscript is written quite qualitatively and professionally, but despite this, it needs some minor corrections. The introduction presents a general overview of the methods used. However, there is no critical analysis (indicating the positive and negative sides) of other researchers' assessment of these methods for UAV/RTK landslide monitoring. Descriptions of the Case study are clear and understandable. Used Materials and Methods are interesting and new. The obtained results are interesting and qualitatively covered but need clarification and possible expansion (see Specific comments). The discussion needs expansion with critical analysis (see Specific comments). The conclusions are clear and concise. The literature used by the authors is new and necessary.
Specific comments
1. Recently, there have been many studies of various geological and geophysical processes using a combination of UAV and RTK. Therefore, I consider it necessary to conduct a critical analysis of such іегвшуі in the introduction. This will further allow you to clearly formulate the novelty of this study.
2. The choice of the number of base and monitoring points is not justified. It is necessary to explain how the number and locations of these points were determined. Specify the depth at which control and base points are set. It is important to understand whether it is sometimes not a movement of only the surface layer.
3. Modern GIS resources make it possible to analyze the volumes of displaced masses based on the difference between two surfaces. It's pretty easy to do, so maybe it's worth adding this. This will help understand the potential risks to the underlying infrastructure (if any).
4. Landslide processes are very dependent on weather conditions, so you need to add graphs of changes in precipitation levels, temperature changes, etc.
5. The study area has been potentially landslide-prone for a long time, so obviously enough different studies have been done there. In the discussion, you need to conduct a critical analysis and comparison of your results with other results (other methods and approaches). It is possible to establish a relationship between various factors.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to thank you for the time spent in reviewing our manuscript. We value your comments and suggestions, and we appreciate your efforts in order to improve our work. Detailed replies to each issue you have raised can be found in the attached PDF.
Sincerely,
Melissa Tondo, on behalf of all the other authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors#Review
Article: remotesensing-2853693
Title: Use Rapid assessment of landslides dynamics by UAV- RTK multi-temporalsurveys using ground-targets: The Ca’ Lita landslide (Northern Apennines)
I. General appreciation
This manuscript presents an approach developed for rapid monitoring of landslides allowing to follow their evolution. The method combines two geospatial data acquisition technologies, UAV – Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and GNSS – Global Navigation Satellite System, without using GCP - Ground Control Points. The method was applied to a landslide located in Northern Apennines in Italy. The developed study reveals interest, however the manuscript requires significant revision, particularly in the structure of the article and in the way of documenting the methodology applied and the presentation of results.
II. Specific appreciation
· Chapter 1 needs to be more substantiated through the inclusion of bibliographical references to the approaches developed and applied to landslide monitoring, indicating key aspects of each one.
· Regarding the structure of the article, it is not clear why the chapter 2 (case study) appears before the chapter referring to the methodology developed. Furthermore, Chapters 4 (Results) and 5 (Discussion) could be merged into one where, simultaneously, after the presentation of the results, their discussion and analysis were carried out.
· In Chapter 2 called “Case Study”, results obtained in the various topographic surveys carried out in different years are presented. The results are presented in a descriptive way and even in graphic form (e.g. Figure 2), which is why they should be presented in the "Results and Discussion" Chapter.
· In the chapter to be redefined "Results and Discussion", in addition to a Figure 2 (graph) of the displacements in planimetry, a graph of the displacements in the altimetric component should also be presented.
· In Figures 10 and 11, it would be useful to improve the captions, namely the placement and organization of the information.
· Throughout the entire manuscript, the coordinate systems they worked with are not mentioned. In the first figure (Figure 1), coordinates appear and the coordinate system used is not indicated, this only appears in Appendix A.
· Appendix(s) are normally presented after bibliographic references not before.
Therefore, the manuscript must undergo major restructuring before it can be accepted for publication.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to thank you for the time spent in reviewing our manuscript. We value your comments and suggestions, and we appreciate your efforts in order to improve our work. Detailed replies to each issue you have raised can be found in the attached PDF.
Sincerely,
Melissa Tondo, on behalf of all the other authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLine 44: you put a period instead of a comma
Line 58: remove word also its awkward
Line 87: do you mean the 1900s? (twentieth century)
Line 131: say damaged not the damaging
Line 139: what SfM software did you use? You add this on line 184
Line 176: is flight altitude above ground level terrain following?
Lines 376-377: that might be negligible for the analysis of landslides, but in cultural heritage management, every millimeter matters, see my colleagues work on Alcatraz
Everett, Mark E., Timothy S. de Smet, Robert R. Warden, Henry Ruiz Guaman, Peter Gavette, Jason Hagin. 2021. The fortress beneath: ground penentrating radar imaging of the Citadel at Alcatra: 1. A guide for interpretation. Heritage 4(3):1328-1347. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage4030072
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to thank you for the time spent in reviewing our manuscript. We value your comments and suggestions, and we appreciate your efforts in order to improve our work. Detailed replies to each issue you have raised can be found in the attached PDF.
Sincerely,
Melissa Tondo, on behalf of all the other authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
the paper is well-organized, well written and it is really interesting. References are poor (only 31!) and I found inappropriate self-citations in the "1. introduction", where you can also cite papers from other groups of geoscientists that work on large-scale landslides, . Please reduce self-citations (now they are 14 on a total of 31). I listed some possible papers that can be included.
I included my comments in the attachment.
Best wishes
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to thank you for the time spent in reviewing our manuscript. We value your comments and suggestions, and we appreciate your efforts in order to improve our work. Detailed replies to each issue you have raised can be found in the attached PDF.
Sincerely,
Melissa Tondo, on behalf of all the other authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
