Linking the Remote Sensing of Geodiversity and Traits Relevant to Biodiversity—Part II: Geomorphology, Terrain and Surfaces

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors provided a comprehensive state of the art of the remote sensing techniques for geomorphological monitoring, taking in to account glacial, aeolian, fluvial and coastal landforms. The manuscript is well written and quite accurate. Therefore it fits the scope of the Remote Sensing journal and, to my view, it can be accepted after minor revisions, here listed:

1. Some references are wrong or not clear, such as the [67], [116], [361] (“Ridolf” instead of “Ridolfi”), [364] (“<scp>” to remove). Please check carefully each of them.
2. Page 6, Fig 2. Location of the sites are reported for each sub-figure, with the exception of c)
3. Page 17, section 4.1 “Flood events and floodplain risks using RS”. The authors should mention the DEM-based geomorphic approaches allowing to retrieve large scale floodplain extensions. (e.g. see Nardi et al., 2019; Samela et al, 2017). Moreover, there are SRTM/AW3D derived DEMs improved for hydrologic and hydraulic modelling purposes (MERIT and MERIT-HYDRO, see Yamazaki et al., 2017,2019). The MERIT is cited in the annex (page 25) , but should be mentioned also in section 4.1. These are important outcomes of RS datasets for floodplain risks assessments.
4. Figure 9 c) The DTM map created by ALS is not clear. Maybe a colormap of the elevations could improve the map.

 

References

Nardi, F., Annis, A., Baldassarre, G. Di, Vivoni, E. R. & Grimaldi, S. (2019) GFPLAIN250m, a global high-resolution dataset of earth’s floodplains. Sci. Data 6, 1–6. The Author(s). doi:10.1038/sdata.2018.309

Samela, C., Manfreda, S. & Troy, T. J. (2017) Dataset of 100-year flood susceptibility maps for the continental U.S. derived with a geomorphic method. Data in brief, doi:10.1016/j.dib.2017.03.044

Yamazaki D., D. Ikeshima, R. Tawatari, T. Yamaguchi, F. O'Loughlin, J.C. Neal, C.C. Sampson, S. Kanae & P.D. Bates (2017). A high accuracy map of global terrain elevations. Geophysical Research Letters, vol.44, pp.5844-5853, doi: 10.1002/2017GL072874

Yamazaki D., D. Ikeshima, J. Sosa, P.D. Bates, G.H. Allen, T.M. Pavelsky (2019). MERIT Hydro: A high-resolution global hydrography map based on latest topography datasets Water Resources Research, vol.55, pp.5053-5073. doi: 10.1029/2019WR024873

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The authors provided a comprehensive state of the art of the remote sensing techniques for geomorphological monitoring, taking in to account glacial, aeolian, fluvial and coastal landforms. The manuscript is well written and quite accurate. Therefore it fits the scope of the Remote Sensing journal and, to my view, it can be accepted after minor revisions, here listed:

Answer:

• I would like to thank you very much for your review and look forward to your assessment of our paper. Your comments are very constructive. I have incorporated your comments into the paper. The entire paper has now been revised again by a native speaker.

Some references are wrong or not clear, such as the [67], [116], [361] (“Ridolf” instead of “Ridolfi”), [364] (“<scp>” to remove). Please check carefully each of them.

Answer:

• Many thanks for noticing this. I use Mendeley and unfortunately there are sometimes errors in the reference list. I have now viewed and corrected the entire list.

Page 6, Fig 2. Location of the sites are reported for each sub-figure, with the exception of c)

Answer:

• I have now included the location of the site: (c) Digital Surface Model DSM and DEM derived from airborne LiDAR, area of reforestation in the former open-cast mining region Lausitz, Germany,

Page 17, section 4.1 “Flood events and floodplain risks using RS”. The authors should mention the DEM-based geomorphic approaches allowing to retrieve large scale floodplain extensions. (e.g. see Nardi et al., 2019; Samela et al, 2017). Moreover, there are SRTM/AW3D derived DEMs improved for hydrologic and hydraulic modelling purposes (MERIT and MERIT-HYDRO, see Yamazaki et al., 2017,2019). The MERIT is cited in the annex (page 25) , but should be mentioned also in section 4.1. These are important outcomes of RS datasets for floodplain risks assessments.

Answer:

• Many thanks for the very good literature references. I have included this literature in section 4.1 and in Table 6 Selection of RS-aided data products

Figure 9 c) The DTM map created by ALS is not clear. Maybe a colormap of the elevations could improve the map.

Answer:

• Unfortunately the recording is a bit older and the DEM cannot be coloured any more. Also the area is very flat. I have now given more contrast to Figure 9c, making the area stand out better.
• I integrated all that references. Some of them were already integrated in the paper

References

Nardi, F., Annis, A., Baldassarre, G. Di, Vivoni, E. R. & Grimaldi, S. (2019) GFPLAIN250m, a global high-resolution dataset of earth’s floodplains. Sci. Data 6, 1–6. The Author(s). doi:10.1038/sdata.2018.309

Samela, C., Manfreda, S. & Troy, T. J. (2017) Dataset of 100-year flood susceptibility maps for the continental U.S. derived with a geomorphic method. Data in brief, doi:10.1016/j.dib.2017.03.044

Yamazaki D., D. Ikeshima, R. Tawatari, T. Yamaguchi, F. O'Loughlin, J.C. Neal, C.C. Sampson, S. Kanae & P.D. Bates (2017). A high accuracy map of global terrain elevations. Geophysical Research Letters, vol.44, pp.5844-5853, doi: 10.1002/2017GL072874

Yamazaki D., D. Ikeshima, J. Sosa, P.D. Bates, G.H. Allen, T.M. Pavelsky (2019). MERIT Hydro: A high-resolution global hydrography map based on latest topography datasets Water Resources Research, vol.55, pp.5053-5073. doi: 10.1029/2019WR024873

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript gives a very good review of how Remote Sensing approaches and technologies; such as LiDAR, RADAR, multi-spectral and hyperspectral, are changing the way of geomorphological monitoring at different scales, and therefore, allowing better conservation of geodiversity and biodiversity. It’s a very detailed and high-quality work. The review is performed very critically as it should be. It is well written, well-structured, and discussing all the actual issues related to the use of remote sensing in geomorphological monitoring and modeling. The issue considered in the manuscript is very important to the gemorphometry and geospatial sciences' community, therefore, this work can be of great use for the geospatial community.

The manuscript is scientifically sound and it deserves to be published, in the present form, in Remote Sensing.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

This manuscript gives a very good review of how Remote Sensing approaches and technologies; such as LiDAR, RADAR, multi-spectral and hyperspectral, are changing the way of geomorphological monitoring at different scales, and therefore, allowing better conservation of geodiversity and biodiversity. It’s a very detailed and high-quality work. The review is performed very critically as it should be. It is well written, well-structured, and discussing all the actual issues related to the use of remote sensing in geomorphological monitoring and modeling. The issue considered in the manuscript is very important to the gemorphometry and geospatial sciences' community, therefore, this work can be of great use for the geospatial community.

The manuscript is scientifically sound and it deserves to be published, in the present form, in Remote Sensing.

Answer:

• I would like to thank you very much for your very positive opinion and review of this paper. I think that this paper will be an important contribution to the understanding of geomorphology using RS.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors your review is certainly useful and, although I am not particularly qualified in this specific field, I find it scientifically sound.

I have some minor concerns about the general readability. I am convinced that the paper can be made a bit lighter to reader by avoiding the many redundancies that are now present.

There are minor English details that can be easily fixed: I marked a few as an example. An important issue is the sentences length: several sentences are really too long. In several cases, there are almost consecutive sentences starting with the same adverb (e.g. Moreover...However).

I felt a bit disappointed because from the title and the introduction I was expecting to see much more results and citation of applications actually concerning biodiversity, based on geodiversty, while eventually the main discussion is on basic techniques to assess the surface of terrain.

Sometimes issues are a bit mixed and even imprecise (particularly in the fluvial section).

You use geomorphology as if it was an object, while as far as I know it is ...a science; this should be corrected. You use DEM instead of DTM in the first part of the paper, while you use DTM in another part. DTM is more correct for that use, in my view.

The annexed tables are very important, but they are not well interrelated and important fields could be added.

I would find very useful a synthetic, but well focused discussion on differences of potentiality and practice of the different current techniques for acquiring elevation data : currently, there are several useful observations , however they are spread across the paper and linked to applications. On the one side, a similar discussion would be useful as far as other data (vegetation cover, species identification, ...) , more related to biodiversity, are concerned.

An important missing reference you certainly should refer to is Piégay, H.; Arnaud, F.; Belletti, B.; Bertrand, M.; Bizzi, S.; Carbonneau, P.; Dufour, S.; Liébault, F.; Ruiz‐Villanueva, V.; Slater, L. Remotely sensed rivers in the Anthropocene: state of the art and prospects. J Earth Surface Processes Landforms 2020, 45, 157-188.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

Dear authors your review is certainly useful and, although I am not particularly qualified in this specific field, I find it scientifically sound.

I have some minor concerns about the general readability. I am convinced that the paper can be made a bit lighter to reader by avoiding the many redundancies that are now present.

Answer:

• Thank you very much for your opinion and your very constructive comments. I have read them carefully and revised the paper accordingly.

 

• You made the remark that for numerous figures a source was All figures, where no sources are given, have been produced by the author or co-authors and have not yet been published in other journals. Here the source does not have to be named again. Where figures have been taken from other articles, the license number or permission to do so has also been stated.

There are minor English details that can be easily fixed: I marked a few as an example. An important issue is the sentences length: several sentences are really too long. In several cases, there are almost consecutive sentences starting with the same adverb (e.g. Moreover...However).

Answer:

• The entire paper has now been revised by a native speaker. Long sentences have been made into two sentences. Consecutive sentences starting with the same adverb have now been altered.

I felt a bit disappointed because from the title and the introduction I was expecting to see much more results and citation of applications actually concerning biodiversity, based on geodiversty, while eventually the main discussion is on basic techniques to assess the surface of terrain.

Answer:

• Thank you for that comment. We have addressed this issue in the following way:
• The entire paper has been revised to better present the link to biodiversity. To this end, a large number of examples have been integrated into each chapter.
• Furthermore, the conclusion has been The conclusion emphasizes the importance of the spectral trait approach for the assessment of geomorphological characteristics and their diversity. The spectral trait approach is comparable to the approach of monitoring biodiversity with RS. Traits thus represent the decisive interface between geodiversity/geomorphology and biodiversity. We pointed out that spectral traits (of geo- and biodiversity and their interactions), processes and remote sensing characteristics will be presented separately in a subsequent paper (paper III – spectral traits of geo- and biodiversity and their interactions, processes and remote sensing characteristics).

Sometimes issues are a bit mixed and even imprecise (particularly in the fluvial section).

Answer:

• We have made these sections more concise.

 

You use geomorphology as if it was an object, while as far as I know it is ...a science; this should be corrected. You use DEM instead of DTM in the first part of the paper, while you use DTM in another part. DTM is more correct for that use, in my view.

 

Answer:

• the paper was revised regarding the use of the term geomorphology as a scientific discipline
• Yes, I think DTM and DSM are both terms that fit together. However, in the tables ... sensors and data products are described and on the left with DEM. Furthermore there exist an standard (ISO/TC 211) using DEM as term
• Therefore, I decided to use the uniform term DEM in the paper to avoid confusion with abbreviations in the tables and text.

The annexed tables are very important, but they are not well interrelated and important fields could be added.

Answer:

• Thank you for finding the attached tables valuable. Since the field of geomorphology is so extensive, I had to make a selection of the Thames areas in relation to the paper. Therefore, the annexed tables included only contain the traits that were discussed in the respective chapters (Table 4: Remote sensing (RS)-aided derived in monitoring examples in terrain and surfaces, aeolian geomorphology, fluvial geomorphology and coastal geomorphology and their traits).
• The inclusion of other important fields such as cryography, numerous examples of geohazard monitoring, etc. is planned for the next publication (III).

I would find very useful a synthetic, but well focused discussion on differences of potentiality and practice of the different current techniques for acquiring elevation data: currently, there are several useful observations , however they are spread across the paper and linked to applications. On the one side, a similar discussion would be useful as far as other data (vegetation cover, species identification, ...) , more related to biodiversity, are concerned.

Answer:

• We have added a completely new chapter covering this.

An important missing reference you certainly should refer to is Piégay, H.; Arnaud, F.; Belletti, B.; Bertrand, M.; Bizzi, S.; Carbonneau, P.; Dufour, S.; Liébault, F.; Ruiz‐Villanueva, V.; Slater, L. Remotely sensed rivers in the Anthropocene: state of the art and prospects. J Earth Surface Processes Landforms 2020, 45, 157-188.

Answer:

• The named reference (Piégay et al.) is often already named in the paper.

 

Answer:

• Thank you very much for pointing that out. I have now included this important literature reference.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Summary:

Remote Sensing (RS) data are becoming prominent in observing the geomorphological traits of the earth surface and its biodiversity, ecosystems and habitats. RS data are also more and more used, not only in observation, but also as data input for modelling approaches, including ecological modelling. This review paper shows the many applications of the different RS sensors, both air- and space- born, providing interesting examples and analysing the pros and cons of the different available RS techniques and data in monitoring and modelling the relation between earth surface. At the end of the paper, tables interestingly list RS data main characteristics and examples of applications. I think that this paper can be certainly of interest and of reference for the inter-disciplinar research community of both earth surface, ecology and in general in environmental science and engineering.

 

The review paper is interesting, overall comprehensive of all RS application for observing geodiversity in relation to biodiversity. The manuscript is well written. I observed some concepts repetition here and there. But, overall I enjoyed to read the paper.

 

The paper is suitable to be published in Remote Sensing. I prescribe minor revision and I send my detailed review in the attached pdf. Please address all the detailed and general comments and suggestions.

 

General comments:

 

• I find a couple of important lacks:
  • Climate and Climate Change: In the paper, it's seems that geodiversity is the only factor regulating biodiversity. Indeed, climate conditions (including climate change and atmospheric circulation) are as important as geodiversity. I suggest to expand more on this. See also detailed comments.
  • Cryosphere: I really miss a chapter dedicated to cryosphere. There is a huge number of works that use RS data to study the extent of ice cover at Poles (very importantly the Greenland Ice Sheet) and glaciers in mountain ranges . This is also very important because it has a strong relation with climate change. Moreover, glacial retreat implies habitats change, sea level rise, increase of erosion and landslides (e.g. in moraines), and loss of water resources.

 

• Please check the references pertinence: I checked some of them, and they were off-topic.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 4

 

Summary:

Remote Sensing (RS) data are becoming prominent in observing the geomorphological traits of the earth surface and its biodiversity, ecosystems and habitats. RS data are also more and more used, not only in observation, but also as data input for modelling approaches, including ecological modelling. This review paper shows the many applications of the different RS sensors, both air- and space- born, providing interesting examples and analysing the pros and cons of the different available RS techniques and data in monitoring and modelling the relation between earth surface. At the end of the paper, tables interestingly list RS data main characteristics and examples of applications. I think that this paper can be certainly of interest and of reference for the inter-disciplinar research community of both earth surface, ecology and in general in environmental science and engineering.

 

The review paper is interesting, overall comprehensive of all RS application for observing geodiversity in relation to biodiversity. The manuscript is well written. I observed some concepts repetition here and there. But, overall I enjoyed to read the paper.

 Answer:

• We are glad that you found the paper interesting to read and have now tried to omit repetitions.

The paper is suitable to be published in Remote Sensing. I prescribe minor revision and I send my detailed review in the attached pdf. Please address all the detailed and general comments and suggestions.

 Answer:

• Thank you for your constructive criticism. We have now addressed your comments and suggestions.

General comments:

 I find a couple of important lacks:

• Climate and Climate Change: In the paper, it's seems that geodiversity is the only factor regulating biodiversity. Indeed, climate conditions (including climate change and atmospheric circulation) are as important as geodiversity. I suggest to expand more on this. See also detailed comments.
• Cryosphere: I really miss a chapter dedicated to cryosphere. There is a huge number of works that use RS data to study the extent of ice cover at Poles (very importantly the Greenland Ice Sheet) and glaciers in mountain ranges . This is also very important because it has a strong relation with climate change. Moreover, glacial retreat implies habitats change, sea level rise, increase of erosion and landslides (e.g. in moraines), and loss of water resources.

Answer:

• We agree that a chapter dedicated to Climate and Climate Change and cryosphere would be beneficial, but geomorphology contains a multitude of sub-areas, which I unfortunately cannot integrate all in a single paper. Already now the volume of this paper with text, references and tables is 66 pages.
• As the areas Cryosphere as well as Climate and Climate change are important areas of geodiversity monitored by RS it was decided to integrate them in the next paper - Paper III.
• I will make a note about their importance in the introduction as well as in the conclusions.

 

 Please check the references pertinence: I checked some of them, and they were off-topic.

 

Your comments in the paper - pdf:

 

Introduction: (Line 96-103)

While geodiversity is certainly an important factor regulating biodiversity, here It's seems that geodiversity is the only factor. Indeed, climate conditions (including climate change and atmospheric circulation) are as important as geodiversity (see for instance your Ref 1).

I suggest to expand on mentioning these other factors, which are also interconnected together (climate, geology, geomorphology, biodiversity

 

(Line 96-103)

Answer:

• Thank you for this very important note. I have again revised the introduction with regard to your very good suggestions and added important references. I also mentioned the concept of ecosystem integrity, where climate and cryosphere are important parts.

 

(Line 210-211)

Answer:

• I have changed the text and also the references.

(Line 234-235)

• I have added 2 references

(Line 260-261)

• I have changed the text

 

(Line 265-266)

• I have integrated your proposal and referred to a newly added chapter. This is about the comparison of platforms and its influence on the RS data quality (see also the new chapter 2.4, Table 1)

 

(Line 580, 695)

• I did changes and integrated also references

 

Chapter 5./Figure 9

• I did not change the legend of Figure 9 (landscape topography), because this corresponds exactly to the queries from the CEOS database.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, definitely the paper improved.

However, I still recognize minor English mistakes. Particularly, but not only, in section 2.4.2 where there even is a whole sentence in German which seems to have been abandoned there!

Another issue concerns figures: several figures texts are simply not readable.

kind regards

Author Response

PD Dr. rer. nat. habil. Angela Lausch

Department Computational Landscape Ecology

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ

Permoser Street 15

04318 Leipzig

Angela.Lausch@ufz.de

Tel: +49 (0) 341-2351961

Fax: +49 (0) 341-2351936

                                                                                                                                   

Dear Editor in Chief,

We are pleased to submit our reviewed paper

Linking the remote sensing of geodiversity and traits relevant to biodiversity— Part II: Geomorphology, Terrain and Surfaces

Angela Lausch ^1,2*, Michael E. Schaepman ³, Andrew K. Skidmore ^4,5, Sina C. Truckenbrodt ^7,27 Jorg M. Hacker ⁸, Jussi Baade ⁶, Lutz Bannehr ⁹, Erik Borg ^10,11, Jan Bumberger ¹², Peter Dietrich ¹², Cornelia Glässer ¹³, Dagmar Haase ²_, Marco Heurich ^14/15, Thomas Jagdhuber ¹⁶, Sven Jany ¹⁷, Rudolf Krönert ¹, Markus Möller ¹⁸, Hannes Mollenhauer ¹², Carsten Montzka ¹⁹, Marion Pause ²⁰, Christian Rogass ¹, Nesrin Salepci ⁷, Christiane Schmullius ⁷, Franziska Schrodt ²¹, Claudia Schütze ²², Christian Schweitzer ²³, Peter Selsam ¹², Daniel Spengler ²⁴, Michael Vohland ^25,26, Martin Volk ¹, Ute Weber ²², Thilo Wellmann ^2,1, Ulrike Werban ¹², Steffen Zacharias ¹² and Christian Thiel ²⁷

 

Attach: the antwers to the reviewer reports 3

Reviewer 3 - Comments

However, I still recognize minor English mistakes. Particularly, but not only, in section 2.4.2 where there even is a whole sentence in German which seems to have been abandoned there!

Answer:

• Thank you for your opinion and careful reading. We have had a native speaker revise the paper again, especially chapter 2.4.2, and hope that all English errors have now been corrected.

Another issue concerns figures: several figures texts are simply not readable.

Answer:

• I have once again revised all figures according to their legibility of the legends and others.
• If the figure 13 is not readable, please print this figure 13 in landscape format on an extra page to increase the readability of the text and figure 13.

I would also like to thank the publisher once again for their efforts in publishing our paper.

Yours faithfully,

Angela Lausch

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article presents an extensive revision of remote sensing technologies and its use or monitoring glacial, aeolian, fluvial, and coastal landforms. The text is well written and clear.

In terms of formatting, I suggest reviewing all the figures and captions so that they appear on the same page (e.g., figures 6 and 11), captions should come after the figure (figure 13). Landscape mode for pages with the tables would make it more readable.

In Table 2, the first line generation method is incomplete, as well as the last line. The authors' contribution is missing.

The manuscript has 64 pages. And there is some repetition in the introduction and conclusion. Authors should consider to remove it to make the article shorter.

Author Response

PD Dr. rer. nat. habil. Angela Lausch

Department Computational Landscape Ecology

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ

Permoser Street 15

04318 Leipzig

Angela.Lausch@ufz.de

Tel: +49 (0) 341-2351961

Fax: +49 (0) 341-2351936

 

                                                                                                                                    2020-26-06

[Remote Sensing] Manuscript ID: remotesensing-792037

Title: Title: Linking remote sensing and geodiversity and their
traits relevant to biodiversity— Part II: Geomorphology

 

Dear Editor in Chief, Dear Penny

Please find the revised paper attached as well as the review comments (in grey) and my comments to the changes made (in yellow).

Sorry and thanks for the late submission or our paper.

 

Best regards

Angela

Review Reports and our comments:

Review Report 1

Open Review

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an extensive revision of remote sensing technologies and its use or monitoring glacial, aeolian, fluvial, and coastal landforms. The text is well written and clear.

• Thank you Reviewer 1 for your very helpful and constructive comments.

 

In terms of formatting, I suggest reviewing all the figures and captions so that they appear on the same page (e.g., figures 6 and 11)

• This formatting is only carried out in the revision of the paper. This is not yet decisive in the review/ proof process.

 

captions should come after the figure (figure 13).

• Thank you − this has been changed

 

Landscape mode for pages with the tables would make it more readable.

This is a helpful suggestion. We will discuss and decided this in consultation with the editor and against the background of the journal layout requirements.

• In Table 2, the first line generation method is incomplete, as well as the last line.
• All tables have been checked and missing information added.

 

The authors' contribution is missing.

• The authors' contributions have now been included.

 

The manuscript has 64 pages. And there is some repetition in the introduction and conclusion. Authors should consider to remove it to make the article shorter.

• The entire paper including the introduction and conclusion has been revised, shortened and any repetitions removed. These changes are directly visible in the paper (track changes mode).

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for an interesting paper.
Please see comments and suggestions for improvement in the attached annotated PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Review Report 2

 

Further comments of Reviewer 1 – Page 1 in the pdf

Overview

The paper presents a comprehensive overview of remote sensing techniques and their applicability to geomorphological investigation.

 

Evaluation

Overall, this is an interesting, relevant and timely paper. Particularly, the overview of RS techniques is strong and useful, and I am sure the paper will become a go-to reference for the coming years. The paper's content, especially where it pertains to the RS of geomorphology, is detailed and comprehensive. I only have three main comments related to the core content of the paper, and these are detailed below. Additional comments are annotated throughout text, and mostly relate to the paper's structure/form/grammar/readability rather than its content. Overall, I think the paper is publishable following minor revisions.

My comments:

 

Comments

The typology of geomorphology traits is speculative, and not elaborated or derived in this manuscript. Thus, the authors do not show the validity of this typology. Instead they simply postulated it, in analogy with earlier paper. I do not think that there is an issue with simply postulating it, as the paper essentially is about RS of geomorphology rather than about a typology of geomorphological traits or the validity of such a concept. But authors should be clear about the notion that their proposed typology is neither "established knowledge" within the discipline nor is it derived and properly substantiated in this paper.

My comments:

• This is a very valid point and we thank you for making it. This paper primarily deals with the derivation of geomorphology traits using RS.

 

2) My understanding is that RS can help with detection of geomorphic form (and traits thereof), but not of geomorphic process. With RS, geomorphic process can only be inferred from geomorphic form or from change in geomorphic form. But it cannot be observed directly. This distinction between form (detectable) and process (not detectable) is not clear in the text, and should be elaborated explicitly.

My comments:

• Thank you for this comment. Your statement is correct. RS can only support to draw conclusions about geomorphic processes from the recognition and recording of structures and patterns. I have now elaborated on this in the text (chapters 2 und 3).

 

3) I thought that some airborne terrain RS methods are quite sensitive to the range of elevations within the area of interest. This is not properly explored in the text.

My comments:

• Your comment is correct. airborne terrain RS methods are more sensitive and enable a more accurate derivation of DEM/DSM compared to spaceborne terrain RS approaches. This statement does not only apply to terrain but also for the recording of all geomorphic characteristics. This is now be emphasized in the text.  

 

 

Abstract - Comments

The consequent does not follow from the premise in this statement. As an individual statement, this needs more evidence. Or, alternatively, the statement needs rephrasing to make it logically correct and coherent.

My comment:

 

The quality of the modelling output is determined by a number of factors, including the quality of the input data. But that is not the only determinant. This statement is therefore an oversimplification.

 

Would it often not be the other way around - geomorphological inputs to be used for ecological predictions. The same principle applies though: quality of modelling output data cannot be greater than the quality of input data.

My comment:

• Thank you for these important remarks. These two sentences have now been completely removed from the abstract and revisions made in line with your suggestions.

 

Introduction - Comments

This sentence is too complex and too long to be meaningfully understood. Also: are the authors confusing geomorphic processes with geomorphic form?

My comment:

• This sentence has now been simplified and altered to make it more comprehensive.

 

Explain terminology. I have no idea what alpha, beta and gamma levels are.

My comment:

The terminology for the mentioned indicators is well established in biodiversity research. From our point of view, a detailed description of these indicators would clearly exceed the focus of the article. We would therefore like to refer to the references given, which contain corresponding detailed definitions of the mentioned indicators.

Grammar ? Something is wrong with this construct, Also: confusing form and process?

My comment:

• This has been revised.

 

This is correct, i.e. the model output cannot be of greater quality than the model input data. But that is not the same as saying that "the the quality of geodiversity and biodiversity modelling is essentially determined by the quality of a model’s variables", as is claimed in the Abstract.

My comment:

• The sentence has been removed from the abstract, as it fits better in the main body of the text.

 

Page 7

Not sure if I follow, or agree with, the logic expressed here. This only works form an RS perspective, i.e. if an RS approach is adopted as an explicit premise. But that premise/perspective is not stated.

On its own, the statement does not hold.

My comment:

• You are right. This sentence has now been altered and made more comprehensible.

As with previous - only applies if a RS monitoring stance is adopted as an explicit premise.

My comment:

• That is correct. We have expressly referred to „RS technologies“

 

That's quite the statement. Any support for this? Or is the reader expected to rely on their intuitive feel for the validity of the expressed sentiment?

My comment:

• We have now referred to further examples as well as literature sources that support this statement.

 

This assumes that the user can reliably make the inference from RS-observed geomorphic traits and trait variations to the other characteristics. It is not intuitively obvious that that inference can always be made. Can the authors elaborate on this?

My comment:

• Thank you for your point. We have included a new figure that uses an example to demonstrate this. These aspects will be elaborated on in a subsequent paper. They can only be mentioned briefly here. However, reference has been made to previous papers of mine where this is elaborated on in great detail.

 

Not sure what this means: "The characteristics of geomorphic processes are the process filters ..." Particularly the "process filters" bit is confusing.

Maybe what you mean is: The characteristics of the combinations of geomorphic processes (i.e. ...) lead to the the formation of characteristic geomorphic

My comment:

• The sentence has been altered as you suggested.

 

This sequence of 6 bullet points would benefit of having a proper introduction sentence, and then have 6 concise bullet points where you don't need to repeat that each is important or essential as a criterion.

My comment:

• The sentences have been revised in line with your comments.

 

 

Not sure why this is under Glacial landforms. Most of what is discussed here (e.g. in terms of DEM creation) equally applies to fluvial, aeolian and coastal landforms. I would recommend that the generically applicable parts of this section are separated and not listed (or implied) as being particular to glacial landforms.

My comment:

• I can see your point, but we cannot separate these parts from one another. At the beginning the reference was made that the statements made here likewise apply to fluvial, aeolian and coastal landforms.

 

All Figures: Legends, scales not readable

My comment:

• All figures have been revised to make the legends and scales more legible.

 

What is the relevance of this, given the higher resolution DEMs already created from earlier missions?

My comment:

• All figures have been revised to make the legends and scales more legible.

 

But not just aeolion soil loss ...

My comment:

• I am not sure what you mean by this comment.

 

 

Page 26

Again, I cannot understand the logic that connects premise to consequent. It might well be that "the monitoring of status, changes and processes of aeolian geomorphology should link in-situ measurements with close-range, air- and spaceborne RS approaches and modelling approaches" (the consequent), but I do not see that this is the case because " RS can record spectral traits and trait variations of biodiversity and geodiversity" (the premise).

My comment:

• These sentences have been removed from the paper.

 

Is it really the processes that are monitored? Or are changes in geomorphic form monitored, and are processes inferred from those changes in geomorphic form?

My comment:

• You are right. Through monitoring one can draw conclusions about the form (structures, composition and functional changes) on the processes. The sentence has been changed in the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

The present manuscript discusses numerous issues at the interface between geomorphology and remote sensing.

I am particularly divided in my evaluation of this paper. From one hand, I would not argue that such integral reviews highlighting  various aspects of interdisciplinary research are important for the advancement of science. From the other hand, in relation th geomorphology, this manuscript, in its 64 pages, did not evoke any new approach or point of view important for geomorphology as a science. I find, finally, most of the manuscript content potentially important for remote sensing scientists, but with only limited utility to other Earth scientists. This 

First, this is absolutely true that geomorphology, as it studies the Earth relief and landforms, is intimately related to methods and techniques allowing to obtain elevation fields - or, relief. In this scope, when the authors say they review various methods for DEM and DSM creation, this is true and this is useful for a branch of science based on such data. But there are multiple other aspects of geomorphology, which cannot be reduced to elevation analysis. I.e., DEMs can be used in flood risk assessment, and the more precise the DEMs are the better, but in the fluvial geomorphology sense, more sophisticated approaches would finally include stream order mapping, its relation to geology and soils, so that the 'added value' of the DEM-based research could be the highest possible. In the present manuscript, the authors in many cases only scratch the first layer, as it is probably the most discussed in the literature and the best known to remote sensing scientists. But the geomorphological reality is substantially more complex and diverse.  

Second. I appreciated the reference to this complexity and diversity in the text, notably speaking about "...the other four characteristics of geomorphic diversity (i.e. genesis, taxonomic, structural and functional)". From that point on, I was expecting that the manuscript will at some point address the applications of remote sensing in explaining the landforms genesis through remotedly sensed data, but this was finally out of the manuscript scope. Functional aspects of landform analysis were also left aside, with only minor attention to the other two aspects. 

Third. The contact line is evident between the geomorphologists trying to adapt to numerous remote sensing techniques and products, already operational or yet planned to be implemented, and remote sensing scientists providing comprehencive reviews on their products. But there is also a question of what RS products are needed by geomorphologists right now, but are yet unavailable? Are the requirements too high? Why existing products fail to cover the researchers' needs? In cryosphere research, there was a particularly wide discussion between ESA and International Arctic Science Committee on how to create really useful interfaces between the RS data and cryospheric research community. In this present manuscript, this is however the part that lacks the most. 

The ultimate goal of this paper would have been to push geomorphology to more advanced remotely sensed data use, but I feel this goal is far from being reached. Maybe the authors have had other goals in mind. Other reviewers might also present other considerations on the topic.

I would propose the authors to reflect on the matter of what utility is this paper for the geomorphological community. The DEMs and DSMs are important in landform studies, but not exhaustively, and there are other subjects, related to RS data treatment and analysis, that are way more useful and practical. Right now, for a geomorphologist, it is deceiving to see the Section 4 on Glacial landforms, without a single reference to a real glacial landform, its origin, features or evolution. Further comments are provided in the attached file, and those comments are not exhaustive.

I leave the authors to decide whether they feel themselves ready for such direction shift. I also leave the Editor decide whether my considerations are important. To my opinion, the authors should reconsider their view of 'mutual benefit' between remote sensing and geomorphology. The paper should be better scoped: either a source of useful references on where to find and how to (better) use RS data, or a showcase of potential use of the RS data, or else. Each approach has its target audience; here, the authors seem to have no clear idea of their audience.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Review Report 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present manuscript discusses numerous issues at the interface between geomorphology and remote sensing.

I am particularly divided in my evaluation of this paper. From one hand, I would not argue that such integral reviews highlighting  various aspects of interdisciplinary research are important for the advancement of science. From the other hand, in relation th geomorphology, this manuscript, in its 64 pages, did not evoke any new approach or point of view important for geomorphology as a science. I find, finally, most of the manuscript content potentially important for remote sensing scientists, but with only limited utility to other Earth scientists.

 

First, this is absolutely true that geomorphology, as it studies the Earth relief and landforms, is intimately related to methods and techniques allowing to obtain elevation fields - or, relief. In this scope, when the authors say they review various methods for DEM and DSM creation, this is true and this is useful for a branch of science based on such data. But there are multiple other aspects of geomorphology, which cannot be reduced to elevation analysis. I.e., DEMs can be used in flood risk assessment, and the more precise the DEMs are the better, but in the fluvial geomorphology sense, more sophisticated approaches would finally include stream order mapping, its relation to geology and soils, so that the 'added value' of the DEM-based research could be the highest possible. In the present manuscript, the authors in many cases only scratch the first layer, as it is probably the most discussed in the literature and the best known to remote sensing scientists. But the geomorphological reality is substantially more complex and diverse.

My comment:

• Thank you for your very valid comment. I would like to underline your points. I am fully aware that with this paper only a „fraction“ of methodology approaches for recording geomorphology can be covered. For this purpose there are indeed some very good books available or in progress.
• The main aim of this paper is to provide a review of air- and spaceborne remote sensing methods, whereby DEM/DSM also play a decisive role.
• Another main aim is to introduce the traits approach to derive geomorphic traits as well as trait variations and their disturbances using remote sensing. This is an important step towards understanding how, why and what remote sensing can measure and why there are limitations in measuring air- and spaceborne RS procedures.

 

Second. I appreciated the reference to this complexity and diversity in the text, notably speaking about "...the other four characteristics of geomorphic diversity (i.e. genesis, taxonomic, structural and functional)". From that point on, I was expecting that the manuscript will at some point address the applications of remote sensing in explaining the landforms genesis through remotedly sensed data, but this was finally out of the manuscript scope. Functional aspects of landform analysis were also left aside, with only minor attention to the other two aspects.

My comment:

• Thank you for your comment. Chapters 2 and 3 introduced "...the other four characteristics of geomorphic diversity (i.e. genesis, taxonomic, structural and functional)".
• For the state of the art implementation of RS for geomorphology the „traditional“ classifications – glacial, fluvial, aeolean, and coastal“ were refered to.
  • In a subsequent paper we intend to derive these characteristics: genesis, taxonomic, structural and functional for geodiversity in the context of RS.
  • Taking into account your valid point, I have added another figure as well as the last figure „Spectral traits for monitoring the four geomorphic characteristics, changes, stress and disturbances using air and spaceborne remote sensing technologies” at the end of chapter 2.

 

Third. The contact line is evident between the geomorphologists trying to adapt to numerous remote sensing techniques and products, already operational or yet planned to be implemented, and remote sensing scientists providing comprehencive reviews on their products. But there is also a question of what RS products are needed by geomorphologists right now, but are yet unavailable? Are the requirements too high? Why existing products fail to cover the researchers' needs? In cryosphere research, there was a particularly wide discussion between ESA and International Arctic Science Committee on how to create really useful interfaces between the RS data and cryospheric research community. In this present manuscript, this is however the part that lacks the most. 

The ultimate goal of this paper would have been to push geomorphology to more advanced remotely sensed data use, but I feel this goal is far from being reached. Maybe the authors have had other goals in mind. Other reviewers might also present other considerations on the topic.

My comment:

• Thank you for this point, which I would like to respond to in the following way:
• We purposely did not include cryospheric research using RS, because the volume of this paper is already very extensive.
• Throughout the entire paper a part of the existing and future RS missions and existing data products were incorporated into every section.
• Taking your comment into account I have highlighted and restructured the future requirements for RS in the conclusion. I would like to point out that such future requirements can hardly be summarised in a few sentences. This was done solely for forest health in another paper of mine:

(Lausch, A.; Borg, E.; Bumberger, J.; Dietrich, P.; Heurich, M.; Huth, A.; Jung, A.; Klenke, R.; Knapp, S.; Mollenhauer, H.; et al. Understanding Forest Health with Remote Sensing, Part III: Requirements for a Scalable Multi-Source Forest Health Monitoring Network Based on Data Science Approaches. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1120).

 

 

• For geomorphology it would also make sense to write a paper specifically on such requirements. I can therefore only partially mention this aspect in the conclusion.

 

I would propose the authors to reflect on the matter of what utility is this paper for the geomorphological community. The DEMs and DSMs are important in landform studies, but not exhaustively, and there are other subjects, related to RS data treatment and analysis, that are way more useful and practical. Right now, for a geomorphologist, it is deceiving to see the Section 4 on Glacial landforms, without a single reference to a real glacial landform, its origin, features or evolution. Further comments are provided in the attached file, and those comments are not exhaustive.

My comment:

• Chapter 4 has now been renamed, as the focus of this paper is DEM/DSM. Your comment is very valid. Since the paper is not a book we had to compromise on some points and concentrate on specific topics.

 

I leave the authors to decide whether they feel themselves ready for such direction shift. I also leave the Editor decide whether my considerations are important. To my opinion, the authors should reconsider their view of 'mutual benefit' between remote sensing and geomorphology. The paper should be better scoped: either a source of useful references on where to find and how to (better) use RS data, or a showcase of potential use of the RS data, or else. Each approach has its target audience; here, the authors seem to have no clear idea of their audience.

My comment: We have integrate

This paper is aimed at a broader audience and can clearly be seen as an important of sources, linkage of complex, multidimensional geomorphic information and to better use RS data. But on the other hand, we also aim to introduce a fresh and new perspective and direction of thinking on the potential use of RS data in combination with the traits approach in geomorphologyExtra comments from Reviewer 3

If I understand the authors' idea well, the correct manuscript title is Linking remote sensing and geodiversity and their traits relevant to biodiversity - Part II: Geomorphology

My comment:

Thank you very much for the suggestion, which we thankfully took up and changed the title accordingly.

RS-based approaches do not enable, but are enabled, or rather promoted, by free RS data.

• This has now been changed.

 

Moreover, remote sensing-based appoaches always require in situ ground-truthing. So - at list in some part - RS approaches inherit most features and properties of the in-situ approaches, the latter being at times destructive. This should be explicitly explained in the text, and examples given on which in situ methods are adequate to ground-truth the RS-based findings.

My comment:

• I share your opinion that the linking of RS and in-situ procedures are urgently required and that in-situ methods are decisive for RS. I have made additional amendments regarding in-situ approaches.

 

This is a nice concept: this might say that each geodiversity feature can be assessed by remote sensing-based approach. Finaly, I find that it's a pity that this concept have not become a framework for this paper.

My comment:

• Thank you for your compliment about the concept. I responded to this in an earlier comment that you made. We attempted to include components in all chapters. However, another paper will be dedicated specifically to this framework.
•  

Why this section name? Text and figures below contain nothing particularly special concerning Glacial landforms: i.e. Figure 5 showcases mostly urban landscapes.

My comment:

• The heading has now been changed, so that Fig. 5 also fits in this context.

 

Does this approach - except of the overall hydrological scope of the study - differ from what is explained for glacial landforms in Section 4? The idea behind my question is that in both cases, and on multiple other occasions, LiDAR data are used in more or less the same way - they supply a high accuracy framework for other research. This framework in not specific to any subsequent use. An appropriate example is that in archaeology, multiple methods are used to relate pottery features to certain time periods, peoples, their development stages etc. And the other branch a bit aside will study methods to produce pottery from clay - and this is exactly the scope of this paper. The RS data feed and serve as substrate for an enormous number of studies in geomorphology. This is not new - before DEM, there were topographic maps, and just later - DEMs derived from topo maps.

 

• Thank you for your very valid point. We do not only want to illustrate new approaches, but moreso how the recording of structural traits (airborne LiDAR) can contribute to the monitoring of flood events and floodplain risks.

 

Finally, yes - this is what this paper does: it lists several most popular remote sensing techniques, and further showcases how each technique can potentially be used in geomorphology. Ths is a bit deceiving, since from the first pages of the text, I was looking for more application-based narrative.

My comment:

 

• We have included an additional explanation in the introduction to emphasize the review character of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I tend to reject this paper finally, after second revision, as in the current form I see no solid justification for the publication - from the active geomorphologist's viewpoint - except the need to publish.

First, the writing quality is lacking. The textflow is repetitive and becomes - at times - particularly annoying, with 'status, change and disturbance' repeating here and there, and poor phrasing like 'geomorphic landforms'. I start questioning myself whether the authors care what these words really mean?! Section 4 title 'Terrain and surface landforms as crucial characteristics for all geomorphological landforms' is a total blow.

The manuscript writing, then, is highly expletive, and roughly half of the text could be omitted without sensitive loss of sense and content quality. 

Second, the manuscript is at multiple points too far-fetched. A close-scale RS of several millimeters is a gross far-fetch, and in this case me making photos from a tree is too an RS act - in fact, not. Flow velocity (p. 36) is not observed by RS but modelled etcetera. The review paper can not be so inaccurate with references and ambiguous/misleading. Even the explanation of the link between landforms and biodiversity is stretched. And what if you use the concept of a landscape classes instead, would not it be more useful? 

Third, there is a marking confusion between geomorphology and hydrology in section 6 Fluvial landforms; weather radars and SAR satellites, in the same section (or the authors count all these as RS? - it's a stretch then). With separate sections for aeolian/fluvial/coastal, there is no separate section for neither for glacial/periglacial forms nor for mass waste/gravitational forms. For the former, I can accept, but for the latter, the link between mass wasting and RS is so direct and clear - as e.g. landslides -> InSAR activity tracking -> risk assessment -> DEM-of-Difference landslide volume etcetera. 

I struggle to fully understand the concepts presented in the paper. Is it appropriate to introduce new concepts in a review paper? The genese-taxonomy-structural-function-trait sequence is not fully used in the manuscript, and to my viewpoint, if it is not used - it is not needed. Use it or discard, especially while it is an original concept, uncommon to many. 

Pushing the manuscript through yet another fast revision is not needed. What the authors need is a long breath, logical restructuring, re-readind, verifying all refecences, better focusing the manuscript, and resubmitting it in a decent time. The tables are better moved to Supplementary Information, and the text shortened to between 15 and 20 pages, this will be - to my opinion - totally acceptable.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf