Spatiotemporal Evolution Analysis of Surface Deformation on the Beihei Highway Based on Multi-Source Remote Sensing Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Suggest 2.2.3 to use sen'slope and MK test directly in the title so that it will be more intuitive.
2. Suggest line 352-355 not to introduce the GEE platform, directly introduce the LandTrendr Algorithm, through the GEE platform to achieve the algorithm.
3. The scale of Figure 3 and Figure 4 is not uniform, please unify the scale.
4. It is suggested to simplify the conclusion, which can be shown in separate articles.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors performed manuscript on the permafrost degradation observed by SBAS InSAR and optical images titled “Spatiotemporal evolution analysis of surface deformation on the Beihei Highway based on multi–source remote sensing data”. Authors used well known satellite radar interferometry techniques to register ground deformations triggered by climate changes. Authors prepared interesting material. Material is well organized with a clear structure.
Remark:
Please fill in the section 3.2 (it does not refer to 3.2.1). Authors provided only the title of the section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. This paper presents a spatiotemporal evolution analysis of surface deformation on Beihei Highway based on multi- source remote sensing data. The paper reveals the problems caused by climate change and provides a way to monitor the evolution process. Although the study is at the preliminary stage, it has a good start and provides useful information for further research in the future.
2. The paper is generally written well. Some corrections and clarifications, though, need to be made, as mentioned below.
3. Line 21, “was inverted”, the meaning of “invert” is not clear. It is suggested to use a different word such as “investigated”.
4. Title of Fig. 1, “in and Heihe City”, delete “and”.
5. Eq. 10, explain how the values of a and b are determined.
6. Fig. 8b, add a color legend.
7. The accuracy of the results should be evaluated. Please add the accuracy evaluation for the results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised manuscript is acceptable.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript reports a study on spatial and temporal evolution analysis of highway surface deformation via multisource remote sensing data. It is interesting.
After carefully reading the manuscript, it is suggested to revise the following items to improve the manuscript.
1. Introduction is too short, it should report the existing research on relevant technologies and the real motivations of the study.
2. In Fig.9(b) and Fig.9(f), What method was used to generate the “curve fit”?
3. What is the real advantage of the proposed method with regard to other analogous methods?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors performed manuscript on the permafrost degradation observed by SBAS InSAR and optical images titled “Spatial and temporal evolution analysis of surface deformation processes on the Beihei highway based on multi–source remote sensing data”. Authors used well known satellite radar interferometry techniques to register ground deformations triggered by climate changes. Authors prepared interesting material however poorly organized and badly edited also with some unclear definitions of surface dynamic processes.
Detail comments:
L.8–14–Please double check affiliations.
Abstract: L.24–25–This is a question mark what authors tried to say. Subsidence is a downward movement and never happens on slopes, so this is very unclear description.
L.26–27–There are repetitions as “degradation trend”.
L.32–33–“diseases” it is a human failure of health, this is wrong vocabulary. Looks like authors could use an automatic translator.
L.40–Reference should be set after the sentence–”years [1]”. By the way I would search an older reference because the cited work is not the first one which defined this process and because “permafrost” term belongs to classical geological sciences. But the reference is ok, however this reference should be cited: after Shur et al. 2011.
L.47–Please clarify numbers: “1850–1900”.
L.78–83– Citation number 18 is wrong, Samsonov et al. use MSBAS techniques (title of the article sounds DInSAR–Derived 2-D). Citations 23 and 24 are also wrong. References 23 and 24 relate to persistent scatterer techniques as multi–temporal InSAR but not to permanent scatterer techniques (PSInSAR). Please double check citations, which relate to InSAR various approaches. Describing SBAS authors should cite Berardino et al.(2002). Permanent Scatterer Interferometry (PSInSAR) was developed by Ferretti et al. (2000, 2001).
Fig.1a is unclearly described.Please check caption of the Fig.1c–“Superimposed” ? So what is a background? Please clarify, the same for the L.128.
General remark (1) concerning numeration of selected sites/sections authors refer they work to. This numeration is unclear e.g. K177+600, etc…I would suggest modifying numeration for the publication purposes. I understand numeration provided was produced for some internal reports but is absolutely unclear and useless for the readers. I would suggest using e.g. test-site 1,2,3 or a,b,c, etc…
General remark (2) concerning description of geomorphological processes (pages 4,9). Authors should better organize the structure. Because so far description of geomorphological processes either as a test-site characteristic or interpretation of InSAR results is mixed up with methods and technology. So it gives a quite messy overview/overlook. Please reorder the structure and prioritize sections’ topics.
L.116–147–Please check the style. Do not start the paragraph” with “Figure shows” or “Figure is”.
L.161–165–First, PSInSAR is not useful for L-band, PSInSAR is applied to motions registered by shorter wavelength. Just no sense to do it. Second, please do not write about the techniques you do not use.
L.149–168–Please add subsection ALOS data.
L.169–188–Please reorganize manuscript and add a subsections MODIS data.
L.189–196–Add subsection Landsat data.
L.192 and 194–Once authors write “data is” another time “data are”, please correct. I would suggest “data is”.
L.197–202–Add subsection SRTM data.
L.203–Either Analysis or Methods–(can be also analytical methods) but Analysis Methods is incorrect.
Equation(1)–Please provide the reference: Berardino at al. (2002). [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3203032_A_New_Algorithm_for_Surface_Deformation_Monitoring_Based_on_Small_Baseline_Differential_SAR_Interferogras]
L.268–269–This material is out of the section’s scope.
L.293–296–Move to other section (Introduction or Study Area).
Fig.2–Please provide a time span in the caption.
L.300–353–Very unclear presentation of the results. Style is very poor. Please order material.
L.328–329–According to geotechnical engineering subsidence is downward movement but not along the slope. Please clarify.
L.339–340–How subsidence increases likelihood of landslides? Please clarify. Landslide has a specific anatomy.
General remark (3): authors write about two absolutely different mass movements as subsidence and landslides but not define the following phenomenon. Please distinguish the movements.
Table 2 should be included in section 2.2 not 3.2.1. Please correct and better organize manuscript.
Equations (17, 18) should be moved to Methods.
L.415–419–This part should be moved to other section e.g. “Introduction”.
L.475–What “disturbance year” is? Please clarify.
Section 4.2. shouldn’t be included in Discussion. These is analysis/interpretation of the results.
Fig.9–Please improve the caption. Numeration of sections as mentioned before should be changed for better clarity of description.
General remark (4):Please order/point out the time span of data provided (vide e.g. L.586).
Section 5 is unclearly presented.
L.615–What are topographic factors? Please clarify.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageStyle must be improved. Comments involved in the review report.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presented the application of SBAS-InSAR based on ALOS-1 data to analyze the spatiotemporal evolution of surface deformation along the Beihei Highway in China. Other satellite remote sensing data was collected and processed, and results were used to explain the observed surface deformations. However, the paper's rationale, methodology, results presentation, and discussion have yet to emphasize the study's novel contribution. Listed below are the point-by-point comments and suggestions to further improve the paper.
Point 1: The abstract must provide the research gap about using satellite remote sensing data and techniques in analyzing the spatiotemporal evolution of ground surface deformations, considering other climatological and meteorological data.
Point 2: The abstract must provide at least 2–3 critical quantitative findings and their implications.
Point 3: The introduction is poorly written. The first three paragraphs did not help set a good study background and needed a concise literature review. A literature review on applying satellite remote sensing data and techniques on ground surface deformations must be provided with appropriate citations. The introduction's inclusion of the literature review must explicitly highlight the research gap. A concise discussion about the surface frost number model and vegetation consideration must also be included in the introduction. Identifying such research gaps could help place the study's novel contribution.
Point 4: Include geographical coordinates, scale bar, and North direction sign in Figures 1a and 1b. When were the Sentinel-2 image and the photographs in Figures 1c, 1d, and 1e taken? It would have been better to include the dates.
Point 5: Were the images acquired by the ascending or descending ALOS-1 satellite?
Point 6: Why did the authors select the study period from 2007–2010?
Point 7: For the SBAS-InSAR technique, what spatiotemporal thresholds were used to generate the interferometric pairs? Include the connection graph. How many pairs were generated?
Point 8: What multi-looking window enhanced coherence in exchange for spatial resolution?
Point 9: All InSAR measurements are relative to a reference point or area. How did the authors select this reference point or area? Please refer to Ramirez, R.A. and Kwon, T.H. (2022). Sentinel-1 persistent scatterer interferometric synthetic aperture radar (PS-InSAR) for long-term remote monitoring of ground subsidence: A case study of a port in Busan, South Korea. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 26(10), 4317–4329.
Point 10: What coherence threshold was used by the authors?
Point 11: How did the authors manage the spatiotemporal resolution differences of the satellite remote sensing data used in the study?
Point 12: It would have been better if the authors provided a process flow diagram to guide the readers on how the analysis progressed from one stage to another.
Point 13: Include geographical coordinates, scale bar, and North direction sign in Figure 2. How did the authors set the buffer zone? Enlarge Figure 2.
Point 14: The color scale bar in Figure 2's legend is discrete, which does not match those in the figure (i.e., continuous).
Point 15: Where is section K160–K182 in Figure 2? The deformation trends are not visible in Figure 2.
Point 16: The reviewer needs clarification about the author's intention to investigate subsidence or typical landslides along highways. Which one are you investigating, subsidence or landslides?
Point 17: Figure 3 is very challenging to read due to illegible legends and labels.
Point 18: What is the difference in the NDVI values from MODIS in Figures 4a and 4B?
Point 19: The 1:1 line in Figure 4c must be indicated.
Point 20: The amount of precipitation and temperature must be linked to landslides in the study area and not in a vague and broad sense, as provided in lines 516 through 534.
Point 21: Figure 7 is also challenging to read. What do the color scale bars represent?
Point 22: The relation between NDVI and surface deformation in Figure 9 is complex. The two observations have no clear correlation because of the different time frames. The satellite images are even out of the study period.
Point 23: The conclusion section must provide quantitative findings and their implications.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageExtensive editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article uses multi-source remote sensing data to study the spatial and temporal evolution of surface deformation in the permafrost area along the Beihei Highway. The authors applied three data sources, SBAS-InSAR, NDVI and LST as the multi-source remote sensing data. The manuscript primarily employs the SBAS-InSAR technique to extract time-series deformation data for the study area from 2007 to 2010. The surface frost number model is constructed using NDVI and LST data provided by the MODIS satellite. The relationship between surface ground deformation and factors such as topography, vegetation, and climate change in the permafrost region is explored. The article demonstrates a comprehensive workload and employs a variety of technical methods. However, the following suggestions and issues need to be considered and addressed by the authors.
1. First, I don't think the methods used in the article are innovative enough. Based on the structure of the manuscript, I believe the innovation of the current manuscript should be the use of multi-source remote sensing data. However, the authors lack a statement addressing the necessity of using multi-source data, for example, issues to be addressed by the manuscript should be explained in the introduction and the necessity of utilizing multi-source data to solve the issues should be clarified. The introduction should be carefully revised, and the state-of-the-art of the methods used in this manuscript should be added.
2. A technical flowchart is missing in the methodology. There are several data as well as methods used in the manuscript, and it is necessary to clarify what role each of them plays and how they contribute to the innovation.
3. Important information such as the resolution and ascending/descending orbit of the SAR data used should be provided.
4. Authors should describe where the deformation was obtained in the caption of each image containing the term "deformation". Were they acquired from on-site surveys or InSAR?
5. -Line315:“The rate of deformation on the roadway is related to the topographic factors”，-Line328:“Elevation is an important factor in the rate of deformation, and subsidence is more likely to occur on higher ground and where the terrain is more undulating.”: From the information presented in Figure 3a, it can be seen that the deformation rate of the whole map is trending along the satellite flight direction, demonstrating a poor InSAR result. The author needs to carefully verify whether this trend is a real deformation or an orbital error. Additionally, the author mentions that the deformation rate change is related to the topography. It is necessary to confirm whether this is a real deformation or atmospheric error related to the topography. The current results of InSAR are no validated and need to be backed up by more information from the field.
6. -Line555 Figure8: The localized detailed deformation result maps for the N1-N8 areas should be presented.
7. -Line581 Figure9: The illustration and description are crucial to supporting the main conclusions of your manuscript. You should provide the processing results of multiple remote sensing data sources, including SBAS-InSAR, NDVI, and the Surface Frost Number Model, as cross-validation, rather than just the curve charts. The subfigures lack of scale bar.
8. The manuscript has done extensive work on the Surface Frost Number Model, including parameters such as FVC, Fn, and MKtest results. However, the relationship between these parameters and surface deformation results has not been discussed. The discussion section only elaborates on the relationship between NDVI index, precipitation, and temperature with surface deformation. The author needs to clarify this relationship.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy questions were answered and the items were revised.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the cover letter. I accept most of the responses. However there are still some comments which should be considered.
Ad. Response 8–superimposed means to put especially a picture, words, etc. on top of something else. So my question was what kind of product is superimposed on the Sentinel image/product. Are there 2 digital layers or just a highway is presented/shown/visible on the image?
Ad. Response 9–if “K” or “K177” means Km, please add this information in the text. Personally cannot find this clarification in the text.
L. 108 of corrected version–should be “data is”
Please do not produce empty section as 3.2 please fill it.
Ad. Response 28–Please paste the response into the text. Then it will be discussion. Please note that authors still presented results in the section 4.2 and this is the fact.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe reviewer thanks the authors for providing a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments and suggestions. The authors could have done better by offering revisions in the manuscript that addressed the reviewer’s comments and suggestions and not simply through the response letter.
Point 1: Comment 1 from the first review needs to be addressed.
Point 2: Comment 3 from the first review must be adequately addressed.
Point 3: Why did the authors only process the SAR data acquired by the ascending ALOS-1 satellite?
Point 4: Comment 5 from the first review is not adequately justified. Why used photos in Figure 1 that do not fall within the study period?
Point 5: InSAR is already a mature ground surface investigation technique. The SBAS-InSAR technique has existed for two decades since its introduction in the 2000s. Hence, there is no need to provide specific details about the processing, but providing the quantitative values for the critical processing parameters in the text is highly recommended.
Point 6: Comment 8 from the first review needs to be addressed. The reviewer asked for the multi-looking window.
Point 7: Comment 9 from the first review must be adequately addressed. It is for the authors’ reason why Ramirez and Kwon (2022) used selection criteria to provide a good reference area due to the lack of artificial buildings that could serve as GCPs.
Point 8: The reviewer strongly suggests that the authors explicitly provide the justification stated in Response 10 in the manuscript. The reviewer reiterates the importance of giving quantitative values for critical processing parameters so that others can reference them for their works.
Point 9: Comment 11 from the first review must be adequately addressed.
Point 10: Why did the authors use a 500-m buffer zone relative to the road centerline? What is the authors’ basis for this value?
Point 11: Comment 16 from the first review must be adequately addressed.
Point 12: Comment 22 from the first review must be sufficiently addressed. The authors could have shown the overlap and indicated how many data points were used for the correlation.
Point 13: Most figures are challenging to read and interpret, as they are not legibly presented.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageExtensive editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the revised manuscript, I am still questioning the accuracy of the InSAR results. The author's explanation for the InSAR results is unconvincing. First, the authors must confirm that atmospheric corrections and orbital error corrections were made. If so, then a comparison of interferograms before and after correction must be provided to demonstrate that the overall increase from north to south in the InSAR rate results is not an error, but a true deformation. The lack of accurate InSAR results makes the manuscript scientifically inadequate.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
