Using Historical Aerial Photography in Landslide Monitoring: Umka Case Study, Serbia
and Stevan Radojčić 1,4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article appears to be well organized and structured and uses an appropriate methodology to investigate the effectiveness of historical aerial photographs for detecting geomorphological and morphometric changes in the Umka landslide over time. I didn't notice any significant errors in the text, figures, or tables. However, some minor mistakes need to be corrected:
In line 59, some methods can be listed before citing the literature number itself.
In line 61, examples from the cited literature can be briefly cited.
In line 203, it was concluded that the sliding process has significantly intensified in the last 60 years, but only in the chapter Conclusions is the use of geological research from the end of the 19th century mentioned, by which this could be determined.
The description of picture 5 refers to the state road IB26, Rucka, and construction no. 89 which are not marked in this picture.
In the Discussion chapter, examples can be briefly cited that are cited only by the number of literature in several places, as indicated for research in Slovakia.
The passage from line 349 is the same as in line 362.
Author Response
This article appears to be well organized and structured and uses an appropriate methodology to investigate the effectiveness of historical aerial photographs for detecting geomorphological and morphometric changes in the Umka landslide over time. I didn't notice any significant errors in the text, figures, or tables. However, some minor mistakes need to be corrected:
In line 59, some methods can be listed before citing the literature number itself.
Accepted: we have listed some of the most usual methods in photogrammetric processing in accordance with the relevant reference paper.
In line 61, examples from the cited literature can be briefly cited.
Accepted: we supposed that you suggested us to briefly describe cited work.
In line 203, it was concluded that the sliding process has significantly intensified in the last 60 years, but only in the chapter Conclusions is the use of geological research from the end of the 19th century mentioned, by which this could be determined.
Accepted: we have added new paragraph that describes the historical geological and geotechnical investigation of the “Umka” landslide with new references. This paragraph is added before description of the geological setting. Statement that geological investigation has started at the end of 19th century has been corrected, since the detailed investigations started at the end of 20th and at the beginning of the 21st century.
The description of picture 5 refers to the state road IB26, Rucka, and construction no. 89 which are not marked in this picture.
Accepted: we have improved the figure. We have added the state road IB26 position and we have enlarged the labels of objects 4 & 89 respectively.
In the Discussion chapter, examples can be briefly cited that are cited only by the number of literature in several places, as indicated for research in Slovakia.
Accepted: Many thanks for your comments. In addition to the cited references, we have added clarifications for each of the mentioned references in a couple of sentences, please refer to Discussion chapter in revised manuscript.
The passage from line 349 is the same as in line 362.
Accepted: We have deleted the duplicated paragraph (349).
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript titled "Using historical aerial photography in landslide monitoring: Umka case study, Serbia" submitted by Đorđević et al., is well within the scope of the journal as well as its special issue. The work deals with the utilisation of Historical aerial images for monitoring an active landslide (Umka Landslide) near Belgrade over a time period starting from 1959 AD to 2018 AD. The manuscript is well-written, and the results are presented in a nice way.
This research shows the successful application of historical aerial photographs in monitoring spatial changes in the Umka landslide. The article is good, but it lacks highlighting its importance and novelty.
What are the limitations of your methodology? What are suggestions for future work?
Specific comments:
A nice study area map (showing the location of the landslide) will make the manuscript more appealing.
Authors can add a methodology flowchart. It will give readers a better understanding of the methodology.
Which software is used for photogrammetric processing? May be I have missed it.
Formatting errors are there. For eg : In fig 3 there is no space between magnitude and unit of scale, while in fig while in fig 4 there is. Try to keep the representation uniform over the manuscript.
line 110: Wherever defining the acronym, it's better to keep the initial letters in the capital while describing the full form of the acronym.
Table 1: Longitudinal overlap corresponding to the year 1962?
Try to keep the font size and font used in the figures uniform throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
The manuscript titled "Using historical aerial photography in landslide monitoring: Umka case study, Serbia" submitted by Đorđević et al., is well within the scope of the journal as well as its special issue. The work deals with the utilisation of Historical aerial images for monitoring an active landslide (Umka Landslide) near Belgrade over a time period starting from 1959 AD to 2018 AD. The manuscript is well-written, and the results are presented in a nice way.
This research shows the successful application of historical aerial photographs in monitoring spatial changes in the Umka landslide. The article is good, but it lacks highlighting its importance and novelty.
What are the limitations of your methodology? What are suggestions for future work?
Accepted: Many thanks for your comments. We have extended and improved the limitations and suggestions for future work. In addition, we highlighted article importance and novelty. Please refer to revised manuscript.
Specific comments:
A nice study area map (showing the location of the landslide) will make the manuscript more appealing.
Accepted: we have created and inserted new Figure 1 that show the location of study area
Authors can add a methodology flowchart. It will give readers a better understanding of the methodology.
Accepted: we have created and inserted new image with methodology flowchart.
Which software is used for photogrammetric processing? May be I have missed it.
Accepted: we have listed all software that we have used for photogrammetric processing, analysis, and data visualization.
Formatting errors are there. For eg: In fig 3 there is no space between magnitude and unit of scale, while in fig while in fig 4 there is. Try to keep the representation uniform over the manuscript.
Accepted: we have revised and uniformed all Figures according to suggestion.
line 110: Wherever defining the acronym, it's better to keep the initial letters in the capital while describing the full form of the acronym.
Accepted: we have removed QLRA acronym. Now, we refer to the possibility of using the aerial images for photogrammetric processing & analysis of landslide activity.
Table 1: Longitudinal overlap corresponding to the year 1962?
Accepted: we have added missing overlap and we have changed the possibility of usage to v. limited.
Try to keep the font size and font used in the figures uniform throughout the manuscript.
Accepted: we have revised and uniformed all Figures according to suggestion.
Beside all mentioned corrections above, we have slightly rearranged the text order and moved some paragraphs from results to the Materials & Methods for the purpose of the reading flow. Also, we have named subchapters within the same Materials & Methods chapter (now are 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.3.1 & 3.3.2).
Although reviewers didn’t have comments about English style & grammar, we have slightly improved it for the clarity. Some sentences were revised and rephrased. We hope that this changes has improved the quality of paper.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I can see that Authors have made changes in line with the reviewer's suggestions. Most of my concerns are met. Still there are a few flaws in the manuscript.
North arrow is missing in Figure 1. Also in the Figure 5 and fig. 7.
There are also formatting mistakes. Eg. Line 84 double full stop is there. Again in line 94 spelling of Large is wrong.
Author Response
I can see that Authors have made changes in line with the reviewer's suggestions. Most of my concerns are met. Still there are a few flaws in the manuscript.
North arrow is missing in Figure 1. Also in the Figure 5 and fig. 7.
Accepted: We added the North arrows in Figure 1., Figure 5., Figure 6. and Figure 7. Please refer to the revised manuscript.
There are also formatting mistakes. Eg. Line 84 double full stop is there. Again in line 94 spelling of Large is wrong.
Accepted: In the mentioned lines, we have corrected the requested errors. Please refer to the revised manuscript.
