Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe the manuscript "Digital Elevation Models and Orthomosaics of the Dutch Noordwest Natuurkern Foredune Restoration Project" is a well-prepared manuscript that drives at a major issue in the geosciences - lack of data sharing and availability. This practice is rarely observed to the extent it should and the authors should feel very good about this contribution and the message it is sending to the discipline. I have very few comments, even fewer of which are substantive. I have provided a table, below, that addresses the few things I did find. Once citation (Walker et al., 2023) was listed twice in the references sections. I feel that Karl Nordstrom's and Nancy Jackson's work on the urban-dune interface would be good to tie into part of your introduction. Perhaps the bigger question I have, given the advent of cloud-to-cloud differencing, is whether or not it is feasible to provide the laz point clouds with the data. That, of course, is very cumbersome and I can understand if the reasonable answer is "no". However, C2C comparisons are becoming more prevalent and beg the question if two-dimensional (raster) comparisons are really getting at the whole story (especially) where steep scarps or overhanging scarps exist, which is not uncommon on many beach-dune systems. I often consider whether it's worth it to make the switch and what that means for my own DoDs. All in all, I wish all reviews were this easy! Well done, authors!

 

Location in manuscript	Reviewer Comment
Line 18	“whose dynamics is” reads a bit funky. I would think the use of “are” is more appropriate.
Sentence ending in Line 22	Karl Nordstrom and Nancy Jackson have written a lot of material on the urban-dune interface. Some of their work would be a good connection for this statement.
Line 26 (References #11 and #18)	The Walker et al. (2023) reference is used twice (#11 and #18)
Line 51	“its deposition as a grainfall” reads oddly. Remove the “a”
Line 79	Period (170.000) instead of comma (170,000) despite use of commas later
Line 96	The sentence reads a bit clunky. Maybe “Storms, especially those from the northwest, can raise…”
Line 295	The “S” in “Agisoft” does not need to be capitalized.

 

 

Author Response

A point-by-point response can be found in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I commend the authors for taking the time to clearly document and publish this dataset for broader scientific use. My suggested changes are very minor and can be viewed below:

 

- Figure 1 and throughout the manuscript. I suggest using the term parabolic dune rather than parabola dune to conform with the broader literature e.g. Goudie, A. (2011). Parabolic dunes: distribution, form, morphology and change. Annals of arid zone, 50(3&4), 1-7.

 

- Line 223  states "I did not have location information". This looks like a comment from a previous draft.  Please reword to improve clarity or delete. 

 

- Line 358. The term Vt is not expanded or described elsewhere in the text. 

 

Author Response

The point-by-point response is provided in the PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf