From Remote Sensing to Artificial Intelligence in Coral Reef Monitoring
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe review thoroughly covers the technical capabilities of unmanned underwater vehicles and their applications in coral reef monitoring, providing a holistic understanding of relevant technologies and methods. It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration, fostering synergies between ecology, molecular biology, and technological development to address coral reef degradation challenges. There are some comments should be considered:
1) There is a lack of in-depth discussion on specific applications and efficacy of certain technologies, potentially hindering readers' understanding of their practical utility.
2) Consider streamlining the content structure to highlight key points, making it easier for readers to understand and absorb essential information.
3) Suggest future research directions and potential technological innovations in the conclusion to guide subsequent researchers exploring coral reef monitoring.
4) The organization of this work should be improved. Some subsection title should be highlighted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe review has mainly described the technologies currently available for
the study of coral reefs, ranging from large-scale capture to local-scale capture directly in the study region, taking advantage of remote sensing systems assisted by aerial technologies and marine vehicles. The article rarely discusses the application of artificial intelligence in coral reef monitoring, so the title of the article-"From Remote Sensing to Artificial Intelligence in Coral Reef Monitoring" may be not very appropriate.
Moreover, the third part of the article devotes a significant amount of space to introduce marine robotics, which are all about common knowledge for marine research. It is recommended to compress the content appropriately and instead focus more on the application of marine robotics in coral reef monitoring. Maybe the third and fourth parts can be combined in the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors This paper reviews the tools and methods used for monitoring coral reefs. It is comprehensive and clear. I have some suggestions. 1) In my opinion, this paper presents two parts of work: 1) Remote sensing and 2) Marine robots for coral reed survey. However, the part of remote sensing is less than the part of marine robots. As you may find, sections 3 and 4 are about marine robots, while only section 2 is about remote sensing. Additionally, the content of section 2 is much less than the other two sections. Please consider balancing the two parts well. This can be solved by reconfiguring the structure of the paper. 2) It would be better to include figures or diagrammatic sketches showing the various types of marine robots. In addition, one or two figures showing the scenes of marine robots surveying the coral reefs could be added to the paper. Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI am satisfied with the English language. Only minor grammar errors were found in the paper. Please read the paper throughout the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper provides a solid overview of unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) used in studying coral reefs, particularly focusing on their vulnerability. It effectively covers various technologies and methodologies, including remote sensing, molecular biomarkers, and artificial intelligence, making it a useful resource for those interested in this field. However, the paper tends to be broad in scope, sometimes at the expense of depth, especially in discussing the practical challenges and limitations of current UUV technologies and the challenges in data integration across different systems. Additionally, while the multidisciplinary approach is a strong point, the paper could do more to critically examine how these various disciplines can be better integrated to address the complex issues facing coral reefs. Overall, the paper is informative but could benefit from a more focused and critical analysis.
Minor notes:
- The subheadings like Remotely Operated Crawlers (ROCs) on page 11, Gliders on page 13, etc., should have subheading numbers or at least bold.
- Seeing the broad scope of the review paper, it is better to extend the Discussion section to cover in depth.
- The conclusion section should be more concrete and pinpointing, for instance should highlight the existing research gaps discovered through the survey so the readers can target those gaps for future research.
Minor grammatical corrections are needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo further comments.
