Phycocyanin Monitoring in Some Spanish Water Bodies with Sentinel-2 Imagery
, Xavier Sòria-Perpinyà 2, Juan Miguel Soria 1, Jesús Delegido 2, Patricia Urrego 2, MarÃa D. Sendra 1, Antonio RuÃz-Verdú 2, Eduardo Vicente 1,* and José Moreno 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I believe the manuscript is a timely and novel contribution to the field of Remote Sensing & Water Management and should be considered for publication in Water.
This study was conducted to monitor and control phycocyanin concentrations, which indicates the presence of cyanobacteria causing poor water quality and eutrophication.
It is an interesting paper, generally well written; however, there are some lacking’s which I will try to explain below:
- I have made some changes to the introduction attached to the pdf.
- Τhe conclusions would be better numbered
- the last paragraph of the conclusions should be better rephrased. You can see my proposal.
- Why an increase in cyanobacteria has been observed and why they have gained importance in the last 15 years?
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have selected to address a subject matter of major interest to the global scientific community.
You have collected and generated a lot of good data. However, your presentation can be improved. There are some grammatical errors that can, and should be fixed. Also, try to use simpler sentence structure to make the manuscript easier to read and assimilate. Too many long sentences tend to make the presentation clumsy and convoluted, and tend to lose the reader.
I have made some "hand-written" comments and suggested changes (in red color) which I have scanned and attached to this review. You may use this as a guide to help make your presentation smoother.
Overall, this is a good topic for research.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors did a great job incorporating most of the earlier suggestions in this version. It is much improved. I only saw two minor items that can be fixed.
Line number 290 should read ; , , , , , Once the atmospheric correction was done, the values of the , , , , ,
Line 301 should read: , , , , Once all the data had been compiled, we proceeded to compile the , , , ,
