Impacts of Resampling and Downscaling Digital Elevation Model and Its Morphometric Factors: A Comparison of Hopfield Neural Network, Bilinear, Bicubic, and Kriging Interpolations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article explores the effect of resampling and downscaling DEM on the accuracy of topographic index calculation and has a certain research value. The article has high quality, reasonable experimental design, logical analysis of the results, and clear language expression, but there are still some minor problems that need to be revised:

 1. Line 26, here can be directly used HNN.

2. Line 91, but is also computationally efficient>> but also computationally efficient.

3. Line 98-102, the paper uses two kinds of DEM with 5m resolution, what is the difference between these two kinds of data? Theoretically, the resolution of the DEM data you use is gradually increasing. Since there are images measured by UAV, is it possible to generate higher-resolution data for experiments? For example, one-meter resolution DEM.

4. Line 155,158,164,179, Please use DEM directly. The abbreviation has been given in the previous section, there is no need to write the full spelling here.

5. Line 162, Dataset 1 changed from 30m to 90m resolution, which you describe as "upscaled", but in Dataset 2, the data resolution changed from 20m to 60m, which you describe as "downgraded" (line166), which one is correct?

6. Line 175, 0.05m with. Delete “with”.

7. Line 184-186, Please check the format of these sentences.

8. To present the area in Dataset1-dataset 4, please use the format 1.4 km×1.4 km consistently.

9. Line 202, Please check the format.

10. Line205, Digital Elevation Model>>DEM.

11. Line 230, topographic wetness index>>TWI.

12. Line 247, Please check the format.

N.A

Author Response

Please view the responses in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1.Line 11-35: I suggest that authors write more detailed abstracts. For example, if the manuscript mentions that the HNN method provides the highest accuracy, what is its RMSE or MAE? I hope the author can provide more data results.

 

2. Line 56-58: Please add more explanations about detailed information on topographic factors.

 

3. Line 164-168: How was Dataset 2 obtained? The author should provide more methodological details for dataset 2 to avoid confusion among readers.

 

4. Line 184-187: There seems to be some issues with the author's layout, resulting in a portion of the content not being fully displayed.

 

5. Line 213: The author should provide labels for each factor, if it is a detailed introduction, to facilitate readers' reading.

 

6. The author needs to beautify their figures and increase the explanation and analysis of the diagram, as there are currently too few explanations of the diagram.

 

7. Line 286-287: “Among the resampling methods used in this research, bi-cubic and HNN are evidently superior to Kriging and bilinear resampling.” Please provide data.

 

8. Line 246: I suggest that the author separate the results from the discussion and focus more on the shortcomings of your research and improvement measures in the discussion section.

 

9. Authors should avoid overlapping figures and tables, as their meanings are different. I suggest that authors analyze figures and tables separately

 

10. Authors can modify their tables by explaining dataset1 when it first appears, without the need to fully introduce its full name afterwards.

 

11. Figure 2: The author should consider how to optimize this image. I suggest that if the color columns used are the same, there is no need to give excellent columns to every subgraph. And each sub image should have the same size, and the author should also provide more textual explanations for the image.

 

12. Line 446: Plan C. is plan curvatures? If the author uses abbreviations, the full name should be given when the abbreviation first appears.

 

13. The quality of some images and the layout of tables need to be improved.

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachement. Thank you!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Clear presentation and organization of paper. Can you clarify what is the impact of taking 30m data, downscaling to 60-90m, then returning to higher resolution?

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

My remarks are in the attached file. Please, study them carefully and try to implement them into a modified manuscript version. As for now, the manuscript is not suitable for publication.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

No problem here.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

nothing

nothing

Author Response

Many thanks to the reviewer,

I have English check and correct as requested.