Unlocking the Potential of Remote Sensing in Wind Erosion Studies: A Review and Outlook for Future Directions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this article, the authors consider a very important problem of assessing wind erosion of soils from remote sensing data. The study is based on the analysis of a large set of relevant publications. However, a significant problem of the submitted manuscript is the inconsistency between the declared topics and the purpose of the study and the general structure of the data presentation. The authors indicate they are reviewing advanced remote sensing technologies and analyzing their potential. But the submitted manuscript emphasizes the relevance of wind erosion research, points to erosion indicators and reviews examples of their study, and also lists some future research concepts.

In fact, the first part of the manuscript, using the example of WoS database analysis, demonstrates the relevance and relevance of wind erosion research and its key points. The figures 3 and 4 shown by the authors do not reflect the current state of the wind erosion problems, but are related to semantic analysis. The second part shows how factors influencing wind erosion can be studied using remote sensing techniques. However, taken together, they represent a set of individual facts and special cases and do not form a holistic understanding of the state of the problem. In the final part, a discussion about the future development of research in the chosen direction is given. But these arguments should be presented in more detail.

Despite the declared topic “Advanced Remote Sensing Approaches” the issues of processing and analysis of remote sensing data are poorly presented in the manuscript, although this is an integral part of this research technology. It would be good to provide data on the use of various coefficients (e.g. TPI, TWI, NDVI etc.) for assessing wind erosion, to evaluate their effectiveness. Also, at the present stage, it would be great to provide information about the possibilities of machine learning in the remote sensing data processing.

I recommend the authors to improve and supplement the manuscript, for example, by shortening the first part and adding an overview of advanced methods of processing and analyzing remote sensing data so that the content better matches the stated topic. You can also change the subject and focus on the relevance of the research, the current state of the problem, highlight the factors that reduce the effectiveness of remote sensing in the analysis of wind erosion and discuss the means to overcome them. However, this will require adjustments to the title, the purpose of the research, and the structure of the manuscript.

Author Response

Review Report (Reviewer 1)

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful review of our manuscript. We appreciate your positive recognition of the importance of the problem we address—the assessment of wind erosion of soils using remote sensing data. We acknowledge the inconsistency between the declared topics, the purpose of the study, and the overall structure of the manuscript, as you have pointed out.

We understand your concern regarding the emphasis on wind erosion research and the limited presentation of advanced remote sensing technologies in our manuscript. We agree that the integration of both aspects is crucial to provide a comprehensive analysis. Therefore, we have made the necessary revisions to better align the content with the stated topic and address the gaps in the manuscript.

To address the issues you raised, we have:

1. Shortened the initial section that demonstrates the relevance of wind erosion research and its key points using the WoS database analysis. We have focused on providing a concise overview of the current state of the problem and highlight its significance.

We have deleted/shortened the Chapters 2.1, 2.2 (deleted table 1), 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4.

We have also incorporated information on the possibilities of machine learning in remote sensing data processing in chapters 3.5.2, 3.5.3, 3.5.4 and 3.5.6.

2. Adjusted the title, purpose of the research, to better reflect the revised content and ensure coherence throughout.

The new title of the manuscript we have proposed is Unlocking the Potential of Remote Sensing in Wind Erosion Studies: A Review and Outlook for Future Directions.

The purpose of the study have been better explained in modified Abstract:

Remote sensing (RS) has revolutionized field data collection processes and providing timely and spatial consistent acquisition of data on the terrestrial landscape properties. This research paper investigates the relationship between Wind Erosion (WE) and Remote Sensing (RS) techniques. By examining, analyzing and reviewing recent studies utilizing RS, we underscore the importance of wind erosion research by exploring indicators that influence the detection, evaluation, and modeling of wind erosion. Furthermore, it identifies research gaps particularly in soil erodibility estimation, soil moisture monitoring, and surface roughness assessment using RS. Overall, this research enhances our understanding of WE and RS and offers insights into future research directions. To conduct this study, we employed two-fold approach. First, we utilized a non-systematic review approach by accessing the 'Global Applications of Soil Erosion Modelling Tracker (GASEMT)' database.  Subsequently, we conducted a systematic review of relevant literature on wind erosion and remote sensing in the core collection of the Web of Science (WoS) database. Additionally, we employed VOSviewer bibliometric software to generate a cooperative keyword network analysis, facilitating the advancements and identifying emerging areas of WE and RS research.

With non-systematic review, we focused on examining the current state and potential of remote sensing for mapping and analyzing following indicators of wind erosion modelling: (1) Soil erodibility; (2) Soil moisture; (3) Surface Roughness; (4) Vegetation cover; (5) Wind barriers; and (6) Wind erosion mapping. Our study highlights the widespread utilization of freely available RS data, such as MODIS and Landsat, for WE modeling. However, we also acknowledge the limitations of high resolution sensors due to their high costs. RS techniques offer an efficient and cost-effective approach for mapping erosion at various scales and call for a more comprehensive and detailed assessment of soil erosion at regional scales. These findings provide valuable guidance for future research endeavours in this domain.

 

Please see the whole revised manuscript as the range of changes is wide.

We believe these changes will enhance the manuscript's value.

We thank you for your constructive feedback, which will undoubtedly improve the quality of our manuscript and look forward to your continued guidance in the review process.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 97: Perhaps it would be better to combine data sources, database presentations, and keyword acquisition.

Line 105: Why choose VOSviewer software, please introduce the software.

What are the advantages of combining systematic evaluation with non-systematic evaluation? Maybe systematic evaluation and non-systematic evaluation should be elaborated in detail in your previous article.

Line 138: Figure 1 explains that you got 207 applicable articles out of 40,127 articles on WOS. How did you choose them? What are the criteria?

Line 286: The current situation and future development of each factor I think needs more substantive content, such as data, charts, etc. At present, you are just stacking literature.

Author Response

Review Report (Reviewer 2)

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your valuable comments. Please see below our answers and please see also attached manuscript with implemented revisions.

 

1. Line 97: Perhaps it would be better to combine data sources, database presentations, and keyword acquisition.

L 118-122 changes as follows: To gain a comprehensive understanding of the application of remote sensing (RS) in wind erosion (WE) assessment, To gain the overall picture of the application of RS in WE assessment, we combined a non-systematic and systematic review approach. We employed various data sources, including database presentations and keyword acqui-sition, to ensure a comprehensive analysis.

2. Line 105: Why choose VOSviewer software, please introduce the software.

VOSviewer is a software tool for constructing and visualizing bibliometric networks. These networks may for instance include journals, researchers, or individual publications, and they can be constructed based on citation, bibliographic coupling, co-citation, or co-authorship relations. VOSviewer also offers text mining functionality that can be used to construct and visualize co-occurrence networks of important terms extracted from a body of scientific literature. (https://www.vosviewer.com/)

3. What are the advantages of combining systematic evaluation with non-systematic evaluation? Maybe systematic evaluation and non-systematic evaluation should be elaborated in detail in your previous article.

Based on our opinion the advantages of combining systematic evaluation with non-systematic evaluation lie in the ability to achieve comprehensive coverage, explore additional sources, connect and synthesize information, validate findings, and identify research gaps. This integrated approach enhances the rigor, depth, and breadth of the evaluation, leading to a more robust and nuanced understanding of the subject matter.

4. Line 138: Figure 1 explains that you got 207 applicable articles out of 40,127 articles on WOS. How did you choose them? What are the criteria?

Lines 165 – 177 were adjusted as follows:

Figure 1 shows a flowchart with the results at the different stages of this study taken from the initial WoS search to the final selection of possible papers of interest for this review paper. Albeit a specific and very stringent search, aimed at excluding unrelated articles from the beginning, the WoS output still generated a relatively large number of 40127 publications for all six factors (a). As shown in Figure 1 (a), all the research conducted on the six investigated factors are included in the WoS database with the restriction of “remote sensing”. Following the evaluating of the papers according to the research interest, the cutting point for considering articles for further evaluation depended on the strong and effective relation to the topic in this step. In this case, 1371 articles were considered for reading their full abstracts by the terms “Wind Erosion” as a restriction for all six evaluated factors (b). Finally relevant articles (n = 207) which emphasizes the relation of chosen factors and  with terms of “Wind Erosion” WE and “Remote Sensing” RS for more interdisciplinary research were evaluated investigated (c).

5. Line 286: The current situation and future development of each factor I think needs more substantive content, such as data, charts, etc. At present, you are just stacking literature.

We appreciate the reviewer's feedback and their suggestion to include more substantive content, such as data and charts, to further elaborate on the current situation and future development of each factor. We understand the importance of providing detailed empirical evidence and visual representations to support our analysis.

However, we would like to note that the scope of this manuscript is to provide an overview of the topic, highlighting the role of remote sensing in wind erosion assessment and discussing the key factors influenced by RS. Given the comprehensive nature of the subject matter and the need to cover multiple aspects within the limitations of a single paper, it was challenging to include extensive data and charts for each factor discussed.

While we acknowledge the potential benefits of incorporating additional empirical content, we believe that the current manuscript provides a valuable summary of the relevant literature and presents the key insights and perspectives in a concise manner. We aimed to strike a balance between breadth and depth to offer readers a comprehensive understanding of the topic while keeping the manuscript within a manageable length.

We appreciate the reviewer's understanding of the limitations inherent in summarizing a vast body of literature and thank them for their relevant comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting review paper on an important topic. My comments are below:

L32 ‘Wind erosion is the natural soil degradation processes’ should read ‘Wind erosion is a natural soil degradation process’

 

L56-8 the reference cited here is specific to N America. A more widely applicable ref. is Middleton, N. and Kang, U., 2017. Sand and dust storms: Impact mitigation. Sustainability, 9(6), p.1053.

 

Figure 2: which group is which colour? This should be made clear.

 

Table 2: it is not clear to me whether countries here refer to the location of author(s) or location of study.

 

L201 reference here is to the United Kingdom. In table 2 the reference is to England. They are not the same.

 

L457 do the authors mean ‘arid areas’ here? I would prefer ‘drylands’, which is what their cited ref (118) refers to.

 

Sections 3.5.4. Vegetation cover and 3.5.5. Wind barriers: I may have missed it, but something should be said about seasonality for these vegetation elements.

 

L480 I think they mean Normalised Difference Vegetation Index or NDVI.

 

3.5.5. Wind barriers: a distinction should be made between living (vegetative, aka shelterbelts) and non-living barriers.

 

L641 ‘RS is mostly used in WE research as a source of input data for WE modelling’ is misleading. Much WE research uses RS to predict, monitor and track wind erosion events and assess their impacts.

 

L686 ‘The data obtained from remote sensors are restricted to surface features mapping’ is also misleading. There is a huge amount of RS data on atmospheric dust, for example.

 

L692 ‘The world is facing the great challenge of global warming and the regions vulnerable to WE are increasing.’ This is too simplistic and sensationalist a statement. Some areas may become more vulnerable to WE, certainly. However, others may become less vulnerable. Some references would also be appropriate here.

Minor edits needed.

Author Response

Review Report (Reviewer 3)

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your valuable comments. Please see below our answers and please see also attached manuscript with implemented revisions.

1. L32 ‘Wind erosion is the natural soil degradation processes’ should read ‘Wind erosion is a natural soil degradation process’

 Revised as suggested: Wind erosion is a natural soil degradation process.

2. L56-8 the reference cited here is specific to N America. A more widely applicable ref. is Middleton, N. and Kang, U., 2017. Sand and dust storms: Impact mitigation. Sustainability, 9(6), p.1053.

Reference (L56 has reference no. 16) changed as suggested: Middleton, N.; Kang, U. Sand and Dust Storms: Impact Mitigation. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1053. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9061053

3. Figure 2: which group is which colour? This should be made clear.

Description (L170) changed to „Groups are identified by color (Group 1-red; 2-green; 3-blue and 4-yellow)”

4. Table 2: it is not clear to me whether countries here refer to the location of author(s) or location of study.

Authors’ countries were assessed using the postal addresses reported in the articles (Bettoni et al., 2022).

Bettoni, M., Maerker, M., Bosino, A., Schillaci, C., & Vogel, S. (2022). Bibliometric Analysis of Soil and Landscape Stability, Sensitivity and Resistivity. Land, 11(8), 1328.

5. L201 reference here is to the United Kingdom. In table 2 the reference is to England. They are not the same.

L201 changed as follows: In third position, the England showed 571 citations for 11 articles and an average citation rate of 52.

However, based on the another Reviewer suggestion, we decided to delete this chapter from the paper.

6. L457 do the authors mean ‘arid areas’ here? I would prefer ‘drylands’, which is what their cited ref (118) refers to.

L457 arid areas changed to drylands, which is correct according the ref 118.

7. Sections 3.5.4. Vegetation cover and 3.5.5. Wind barriers: I may have missed it, but something should be said about seasonality for these vegetation elements.

 L500-510 have been changed as follows: During different seasons, the state of vegetation cover undergoes changes, which in turn affects its ability to mitigate wind erosion. The impact of seasonality on vegeta-tion cover relates to the growth and development stages of crops or plant species. In some regions, vegetation cover may decrease during dry seasons or winter, leading to reduced erosion control capacity. Conversely, during the rainy seasons or periods of active growth, vegetation cover tends to increase, providing greater protection against erosion. The extent of vegetation cover is often represented as the ratio of the surface area covered by plants [33109]. If the vegetation cover is below 20%, it has minimal impact on reducing wind velocity, while erosion is essentially halted if the vegetation cover exceeds 60% [119110]. Therefore, understanding the seasonality of vegetation cover is crucial for assessing its effectiveness in erosion control throughout the year.

L541-546 RS has emerged as an effective tool to monitor and analyze vegetation to effectively incorporate seasonality and cover patterns  over space and time [143135]. Recent ad-vancements in image-based techniques [144136] and high-resolution RS [145 137 - 147139] have enabled rapid and large-scale quantification of plant characteristics such as height, width, and porosity. These data can be utilized to quantify the dynamics of vegetation cover throughout different seasons and improve erosion modeling.

8. L480 I think they mean Normalised Difference Vegetation Index or NDVI.

Changed to Normalised Difference Vegetation Index

9. 3.5.5. Wind barriers: a distinction should be made between living (vegetative, aka shelterbelts) and non-living barriers.

We agree with your opinion, however we focused more on vegetative part as windbreaks and shelterbelts. So we decided to change the name of the subchapter to Living wind barriers – should be more appropriate – L568

10. L641 ‘RS is mostly used in WE research as a source of input data for WE modelling’ is misleading. Much WE research uses RS to predict, monitor and track wind erosion events and assess their impacts.

 L 703 changed as follows: Much WE research uses RS to predict, monitor and track wind erosion events and as-sess their impacts, but also RS is mostly used in WE research as a source of input data for WE modelling.....

11. L686 ‘The data obtained from remote sensors are restricted to surface features mapping’ is also misleading. There is a huge amount of RS data on atmospheric dust, for example.

L 750-754 changed as follows: The data obtained from remote sensors primarily focuses on surface features mapping, and direct linkage to soil erosion may require the use of inference methods [209]. However, it is important to note that remote sensing data encompasses a wide range of information beyond surface features. For instance, atmospheric dust is extensively monitored using remote sensing techniques.

12. L692 ‘The world is facing the great challenge of global warming and the regions vulnerable to WE are increasing.’ This is too simplistic and sensationalist a statement. Some areas may become more vulnerable to WE, certainly. However, others may become less vulnerable. Some references would also be appropriate here.

L761 was changed as follows: warmingThe issue of global warming presents a complex challenge for the world. While certain areas may experience increased vulnerability to WE [102, 210, 211], it is also important to acknowledge that other regions might witness a reduction in vul-nerability [212].

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I thank the authors for their attentive attitude to the remarks I have indicated. The authors have done a lot of work to eliminate inaccuracies in the structure of the manuscript and edited some controversial points in the text. In my opinion, in the presented form, the manuscript can be published.