Assessing Geomorphic Change in Restored Coastal Dune Ecosystems Using a Multi-Platform Aerial Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is a very interesting contribution to the analysis of the methodological approach for geomorphic changes monitoring in restored coastal dune ecosystems. The assessment of the multi-platform aerial approach addresses the exploitation of the advanced technologies to provide useful information for scientists and for all subjects involved in landscape management activities. It is appreciable the strictness of the applied methods, well described and supported by an equally detailed assessment of the uncertainty budge. This aspect is the best point of the paper, in my opinion, because it represents a fundamental insight for the discussion in the scientific community about the most accurate strategy to adopt in this study contexts. All sections of the manuscript are well written; only the description of the results could be further integrated (see detailed points). Maybe, another aspect could be supplemented as following explained: Clearly, the most important evaluation that reaches the goal of the paper regards the detection of the geomorphic changes in relation to the restoration efforts in the sites. However, it seems to lack an overall consideration of these geomorphic changes in relation to the geomorphological processes and factors that affect the sites. Therefore, I suggest to the authors to insert a paragraph with these considerations in the Discussion section, in order to make totally understandable the evolution trend of the sites in their regional context: this element is useful for future restoration plans which cannot ignore the detection of the processes in place. In this perspective, the assessment of the methodological approach accuracy becomes even more useful.

Detailed points

Study area

- The figure 1 can be integrated with the location of the Eureka Littoral Cell in the Pacific Ocean coast. Please add a box in the upper or lower part of the figure to locate ELC in California and Pacific Ocean as described in the text (lines 117-120).

Material and Methods

- Line 294: “[…] is that it and reduces potential bias…”. Please remove “and”.

Results

- Line 415: The reference to the table 6 is not correct. The correct reference is to the Figure 6. Please revise it.

- Lines 448-476: In order to visualize the geomorphic changes it could be helpful showing the detailed places where surface erosion and/or accretion occurred. Please integrate this graphic information on the most significant changes also through a cross-sectional view (e.g. comparison of topographic profiles) in addition to the overall view of the surface difference already shown in figures 7-8.

- Tables 3-4: Please replace “compliment” with “complement”.

- Line 481: The reference to the table 7 is not correct. The correct reference is to the figure 7. Please revise it.

- Figure 9: There are too many symbols that make difficult to understand the graph. I suggest to use the colours alternatively to the symbols size, for example (e.g. a graduated colour scale to represents the vegetation state instead of the size).

Discussion

- Figure 11: The reference to this figure is missing in the text. Please add it.

- Line 594: Please close the brackets after “figure 9”.

Author Response

The authors greatly appreciate the constructive criticism provided by Reviewer 1. Furthermore, the suggestions for improving figures were well received by the authors and the figures are now stronger, because of it. Finally, the authors fully agree with the Reviewer's comments, related to inserting a paragraph in the Discussion section, to better contextualize evolutionary trends in a regional context. The authors have included comments to all points made in the attached response document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Revision of the manuscript n. 1060545

Dear Editor, many thanks for the opportunity to revise this manuscript, which I found very interesting. The manuscript entitled “Assessing Geomorphic Change in Restored Coastal Dune Ecosystems Using a Multi-Platform Aerial Approach” by Hilgendorf et al. is dealing with analysis and comparison among multi aerial platform approach in order to verify significant geomorphic changes in a restored coastal dune ecosystem of the northern California State. I like very much the paper that conjugate two main fields of researches on a coastal dune, the geomorphological and the bio-ecological aspects. The paper is well written and the reading is nice. I found only excessive the length of some sections and more in general of the whole text. My suggestion is to shorten the entire text thus to allow a reader to better follows the argumentation of the paper. Furthermore, I don’t found in the text how authors have distinct and classified the geomorphic units as showed in figure 6. Is it possible to add some phrasing in the text or a sketch map which explain it? In conclusion, I think that the paper is suitable for publication after minor revision of the text. Below, I report some suggestions for the authors.

Lines 32-34: please, delete the sentence.

Lines 38-42: please, delete the sentence. It is redundant in the text.

Line 45:  I suggest to delete the subsection. The introduction will be more swift and short.

Lines 46-60: It a too long phrasing. You need to short the phrasing.

Line 61: see the comment of line 45.

Lines 62-97: It’s a too long phrasing about the scientific background. You have necessary to reduce the list of authors joining the comments on previous works.

Lines 118-120: you write that The ELC is located in a specific tectonic setting. Could you add a simple tectonic sketch map showing your statements?

Line 170: you cite KAP data, but previously in the text I don’t found the meaning of KAP. It will be useful for a reader to clarify the method.

Lines 247-262: In these lines, there is an accurate description of the uncertainties in the measurement and it likes me but I regret to suggest you a cut of the text. Could you synthesize the content in a more short-form?

Lines 283-306: Also this part of the text is too long and needs to be shortened, please.

Lines 361-391: Please, reduce the text length

I suggest to rotate the orientation of Tables 1, 2, 3, and 5 and to reduce in size figures 10, 11, and 12.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the feedback provided by the reviewer and worked to reduce text throughout the paper, reducing the manuscript by two pages. All points made by Reviewer 2 were addressed by the authors in the attached word document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

It would be great if there was a better reference for what is stated on line 220.  Perhaps since the authors did collect some ground control data, they could report what level of confidence filter worked best on their data.

Author Response

The authors agree and, until recently, were unable to find any reference outside of forums. However, a new paper by Bayley and Mogg (2020), in Methods in Ecology and Evolution, references the removal of low confidence point thresholding in the same manner we employed it. We have included this reference to strengthen our methods.