Estimating Suspended Sediment Fluxes from the Largest Glacial Lake in Svalbard to Fjord System Using Sentinel-2 Data: Trebrevatnet Case Study
, Iwo Wieczorek 1, Guy D. Tallentire 3, Mihail Demidionov 2, Jakub Uher 2 and Mateusz C. Strzelecki 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors need to undergo Revision before the paper can be accepted. The main remarks that in my opinion need attention are following:
Title: To me, the title is not well contained the research method (Remote Sensing) but it is the choice of authors. In fact, this manuscript is a Remote Sensing application study. It can be considered on Water mainly because it studies Suspended Sediment Transport. But the nature of remote sensing applications has not changed. Therefore, scientific explanations should be made on this subject.
In the abstract, please add an indication of the achievements from your study. Moreover, some key data should be incorporated into the abstract.
Introduction and Materials and Methods: These parts are too long with ~ 200 lines (relative to the results and discussion, ~ 100 lines). The introduction should more clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to the paper goals within 4~5 paragraphs (succinct and clear). The materials and methods has been written in sequence and structured well.
Results and Discussion: The sub-sections (2 or 3) are suggested in this part to make it clear. More deep discussion is also suggested.
Figures: All the legends in all figures are too small to read. Please revise them.
Author Response
dear reviewer,
thank you for your comments and suggestions, We appreciate your work on the manuscript. Please, find all our replies in the file attached.
with regards,
Jan and co-authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
dear reviewer,
thank you for your work on the manuscript, we appreciate all your comments and suggestions. Please, find our replies in the file attached.
with regards,
Jan and co-authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
There is no further comments on the ms. Most of the issues and suggestions are taken/improved in the new version. I accept it in the current form.
