Towards a Guideline for UAV-Based Data Acquisition for Geomorphic Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

 The manuscript deals with a guideline for UAV-based data acquisition for geomorphic applications.

All activities related to the generation of DEM, DTM and orthophotos using images acquired by drones are described and treated, with the aim to optimize the final results.

The manuscript is well conceived and written. References are exhaustive and up to date.

The examples and the results are well explained and discussed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find attached pdf document with 3 comments regarding small writing errors and image quality.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Reviewer 3 Report

Focusing  on extracting geomorphic data from UAV images, guideline steps for pre-field flight planning and image processing were discussed in this paper. 

1. The description methodology is step by step, but it seems lacking detail information about innovation methods, and the analysis  about cutting-edge methods such as path planning, image matching and mosaics.  Suggest present discussions for that.

2. Comparisons between the proposed method and other typically methods can be added, to illustrate the benefits of the proposed guidelines.

 

 

Focusing  on extracting geomorphic data from UAV images, guideline steps for pre-field flight planning and image processing were discussed in this paper. 

1. The description methodology is step by step, but it seems lacking detail information about innovation methods, and the analysis  about cutting-edge methods such as path planning, image matching and mosaics.  Suggest present discussions for that.

2. Comparisons between the proposed method and other typically methods can be added, to illustrate the benefits of the proposed guidelines.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors

It is my pleasure to read your paper on the title: Towards a guideline for UAV-based data acquisition for geo-morphic applications.

The study was a good attempt to focus on UAV based application, data accuracy test in several places in parts of India. However, at current level paper is not suitable to the readers which needs many improvements in your manuscript. I have suggested in general and specific lines. Please be focused and revised the manuscript carefully following my suggestions.

1. In abstract, seems not readable appropriately, the readers are more interested to see your main findings. Some lines at the starting part need to be rewrite.

2. Abstract should be more attractive. Please also prepare graphical abstract, which need to be supply during revision submission stage.

3. Keywords should be less in number. Only best should be select for indexing purposes.

4. In page 2, Line 73-75, need reference after the GCPs. Line 81, write it as GCP/km2. do not use both per and /. Contrarily should be replace with In contrast.

5. In Line 87, after mountains add please ...which; Line 90, The present work

6. In Key map, right, study map need to show label name. Below of it, place the study area in sequentially,. Please re-order those as: 1.Mandasur 2. Kawardha, 3. Anpara, and 4. Mayurbhanj.

7. Table-1, shift to after line 111, as it is appropriate here. In Table 1, details of each area is not required as you have shown in the following text already.

8. As this study has main focus on geomorphic features based application, I am requesting authors to highlights several geomorphic features in zoom view which is most appropriate for the readers to your study area in details.

9. Lines 112-120 RGB, and RGNIR should be abbreviate at this stage.

10. In section 3.3.1 Camera (lens) calibration, this section is too long, Due to too much text readers will be distract at some point. Please be short and specific.

11. Multiple sub sections is not allowed. such as 4.2.1.1 only three digits is permissible as subsection heading. You could replace as (I), (II)/a,b. so on..

12. details of Study area should not report in Table if required use code for it to express its meaning at the bottom of the table as footnote.

13. As you have conducted extensive field survey, please use field evidence as your records which can be highlight in the study area section. Different area based UAV footage and real ground photos are necessary to know the details of the study area. Then each specific geomorphic categories according to it should be shown. This should be apply for all study areas.

14. Figure 6., first caption required in broad aspect then (a), (b), etc. 

15. Please show the different perspective view of the figure 6. Top view, 3D view in different rotation angle and terrain evaluation is necessary, so according to different perspectives details could be sought. and readers will know the details of geomorphic application.

16. Finally, what are the shortcomings in this study, and if any problems persist during image processing, error improvement suggestions and future application in other field and importance of UAV survey should be discusses in separate section.

Hope these suggestions will improve your current work and I will be happy if you revise this manuscript and submit it for re-review.

No other additional file available in my report.

Good Luck for your revision work.

Reviewer

Date: 15 June 2023; Time: 6.00PM

English language are fine to me. However, few unwanted spaces are exist in several lines. Author should take care of those. English text expression can be improved for the readers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors

Many thanks for submitting your revised track version and most of my earlier comments were addressed by authors during their revision work. However, some raised points especially details of geomorphic pattern identification is not focused by authors and skipped as it is not their study focus.

As i went through this revision, still the manuscript need improvement. The paper can be accept after minor correction. 

My specific comments:

1. In abstract, track change version: Lines 30-34 authors used too much 'and' to express the text and sentences need to be re-write. and expression should be clear about what you did in this study. Also you must add one line the importance of this study and its future implications, so method could be benefited to the other's study as well.

2. Place Figure 1, after your text when you report for the first time. please move it to section-2.

3. Study site geographical extension must provide for each station site. Caption in Table 1: List of Study areas and their major characteristics should replace with "Details list of UAV flight operations and its Characteristics".

4. After Table, next paragraph should start with a break currently, it attached.

5. Table 2a and 2b should be up before the paragraph :A total of 28 flights...." Source should be provide below each table.

6. Lines 482 -487 should be move before Figure -4.

7. Table 4 should be after line 523. It is always good to show Figure and table where you first reported. Similarly, Table 5, 6, 7 should also be move after the each concerned text you first mentioned. Currently arrangement of the entire manuscript is not ok to me. please rearrange those.

8. Finally, in acknowledgement section, at the end, you could address reviewers, editor and give them credits for your paper evaluation.

At the end, I would suggest authors please revise it and double check each unwanted space in between paragraphs throughout the manuscript.

Decision: paper can be accept after minor correction.

English language are fine, minor corrections are suggested.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf