Review Reports - Atmospheric Correction Model for Water–Land Boundary Adjacency Effects in Landsat-8 Multispectral Images and Its Impact on Bathymetric Remote Sensing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is effectively organized, and the meaning of the text is generally clear and written in clear English.

I recommend to improve Figure 7. (a) , Figure 8. (a) and (b). The legends are not clear

Line 61, Bulgarelli et al. [3], [4], [16],[17] …… re write this

Line 74 to 75: OLI can detect the information of the sea up to 36 km, while MSI is only 20 km…… (add the reference for this text)

You have compared with a commonly used models MODTRAN, FLAASH, ATCOR, and 6S. this that possible to compare with ground measured data?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for pointing out the problems with manuscript "Atmospheric Correction Model for Water–land Boundary Adjacency Effects in Landsat-8 Multispectral Images and Its Impact on Bathymetric Remote Sensing", which we have answered and revised in detail. See attachment for details.

Kind regards,
Huanwei Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is intended to improve the atmospheric correction at the boundary between land and water, and contains practically important contents. However, it seems that the following points need to be corrected.

1. It seems better to change the title. With the title as it is, it cannot be judged as a paper discussing atmospheric correction, and is misunderstood as a paper on algorithm development for water quality and water depth. "Correction" at the beginning of the title should be changed to "Atmospheric Correction" to clearly indicate that the paper proposes a new atmospheric correction.

2. The Proposal Model in 2.2 is difficult to understand. It is necessary to devise a method such as showing a flowchart using specific numerical values.

3. What is the relationship between equations (12) and (13)? 　Equation (13) is a Radiance-based water depth estimation formula, but Equation (12) is reflectance-based. When actually estimating the water depth, how is the water depth calculated? "I would like you to explain the expansion of the equation a little more carefully.

4. Is the symbol CTS shown in Figure (3) your original term? If it is not a technical term, rather than CTS-1 and CTS-2, I would like you to change it to intuitively understandable expressions such as "Mixed Zone" and "Water Zone".

5. Is your proposed algorithm unaffected by turbidity or waves? The abnormal rise in the reflectance of the water-land interface is considered to be mainly caused by the seafloor topography, water quality, waves, etc. Which parameter is the most dominant in your model? Also, the discussion is lacking.

That‘ｓ all

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Kind regards,
Huanwei Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In the article, the authors applied an interesting methodological solution to remote Sensing and bathymetic. The article, in my opinion, brings new content for remote sensing and should be published. However, it requires some changes that should be taken into account.

It is interesting to see how the proposed model behaves in other seasons on an annual basis, where, due to the study area (water-land boundary), a number of factors-e.g., the amount of suspended solids-change dynamically.

An important issue is wave height. How will this factor affect the accuracy of the results obtained?

The discussion chapter contains the results to a large extent-it should be rewritten.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Kind regards,
Huanwei Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Appropriately responds to the reviewer's comments. Therefore, I recommend acceptance.