Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I have reviewed the PDF of your manuscript and provided feedback and comments. However, I have identified areas that require revision for your manuscript to meet the expected standards. Please take my comments into consideration during your revision process.

Regards.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study used optical images, environmental variables, and soil samples to predict the SOC content in lava regions. The innovation of the paper is not obvious enough.

 

1. 10 fold cross validation can effectively avoid random errors, and the author needs to use cross validation to determine the authenticity of the results.

2. The time and processing of the author's use of Sentinel 2 images is very vague, and it needs to be clarified because the results obtained by different processing methods are different in different periods. In addition, the author only has Sentinel 2A? Why not use Sentinel 2B? I think what you want to express is Sentinel 2A level.

 

3. The author needs to further refine innovative points, which are not based on the use of several methods or indicators, but also based on the characteristics of the study area, propose areas that are different from other regions in terms of SOC inversion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, thanks for your efforts, however, there are still some comments. Good luck.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has made significant revisions to the article and some related references may make your introduction more substantial.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx