Spatiotemporal Variations in Biophysical Water Quality Parameters: An Integrated In Situ and Remote Sensing Analysis of an Urban Lake in Chile

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have carefully go through your paper entitled "Spatiotemporal Variations in Biophysical Water Quality Parameters: An Integrated In-Situ and Remote Sensing Analysis for an Urban Lake in Chile". As far as my review is concerned, I must appreciate the effort of the authors for this type of study.

Firstly, I gained great interest to read the title and through it would be a great contribution in term of comparison between field collected water quality data and satellite acquired data (i.e., Landsat 8 OLI). But I little much disappointed to read the whole manuscript because there are some mistake in presentation. 

However, I trust if the authors will agree to revise their manuscript as per following comments, I will pleased to accept this manuscript for publication.

(1) First of all, the authors need to highlight the main findings in the abstract

(2) In the study area, the authors need to add the water-related issues and justification of this study for this region

(3) The data source are well explained, but I have not found any standard methodological discussion on water quality calculation.

(4) Section 2.5 need more clarification, how the authors estimated the water parameters from Landsat-8 data?

(5) In the result section, the remotely sensed prepared maps are shown, but the field collected water quality data are not well illustrated. In this case, I suggest the authors to prepare interpolated maps of field data and make a real comparison between them.

(6) The Discussion and Conclusion should be two separate sections.

Thank you 

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article in hand is a research exercise about a methodology developed to retrieve bio-optical parameters in a Chilean lagoon using Landsat-8 satellite images and in-situ measurements of chlorophyll-a and turbidity, with ACOLITE identified as the optimal model for calibration. The study identified an eight-year decline in chlorophyll-a concentration, possibly linked to governmental conservation measures, providing a foundation for an advanced monitoring system to supplement traditional methods in understanding the lake's dynamics.

The efforts of the authors are appreciated. For improvement of the quality of the manuscript, please attend to the following observations:

1. Add a diagram under the Study Area heading displaying the monthly influx of water to the lagoon for understanding the quantum of water or storage-elevation curve.

2. Briefly explain the moving boat survey and how exact location points were chased. How can one boat cover the swath width of LS-8 scanning at the same time as a satellite overpass?

3. Add two photos, one showing the boat survey and the second about the lab. work.

Good luck with the revision. 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is well-crafted and exhibits a robust structure. I appreciate the paper's significant contribution to the development and testing of empirical retrieval models using different band combinations which could be used to develop and implement lake-water quality monitoring system. Given its substantial value, I believe this paper deserves publication.

I do not find any technical issues. However, I would recommend a minor correction for a better readability - Figure 7: Please enlarge and increase the font size of linear model (y = 2,72+16.38*x) in  both panels of the figure 7.  

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This approach to using remotely sensed data for water quality is interesting, but the paper needs to include a broader discussion of the significance of the research within the context of other studies.  Criteria for Chl-a and turbidity sustainability values or healthy values should be given or developed for the area.  The number of sample are a bit low and no explanation as to why turbidity did not work well was given.

The language is fine.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made required changes in the revised version as per by suggestion and comments.

Therefore, I am pleased to accept the manuscript to publish in your esteemed journal.

Thank you