Next Article in Journal
Estimation of Near-Surface High Spatiotemporal Resolution Ozone Concentration in China Using Himawari-8 AOD
Previous Article in Journal
Application of a Random Forest Method to Estimate the Water Use Efficiency on the Qinghai Tibetan Plateau During the 1982–2018 Growing Season
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Inter-Annual Variability of Peatland Vegetation Captured Using Phenocam- and UAV Imagery

Remote Sens. 2025, 17(3), 526; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17030526
by Gillian Simpson 1,2,*, Tom Wade 1, Carole Helfter 2, Matthew R. Jones 2, Karen Yeung 2 and Caroline J. Nichol 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Remote Sens. 2025, 17(3), 526; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17030526
Submission received: 4 December 2024 / Revised: 22 January 2025 / Accepted: 1 February 2025 / Published: 4 February 2025

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

It is an effective approach for monitoring the inter-annual variability of peatland vegetation across a range of spatial and temporal scales using dense time series of imagery captured by a phenology camera and multispectral imagery from a UAV-based camera. This study uses the phenocam imagery and multispectral UAV multispectral data to track vegetation phenology in peatlands and examine species-level changes in greenness metrics in response to GPP and the weather anomalies. The data used are sufficient and the procedure of the data processing procedure were explained in detail, which can support the analysis and conclusions. Overall, the general idea and methodology are not innovative enough, but the manuscript is well written.

Detailed comments:

1. Title: phenocam- => phenology camera

2. Too many keywords make the focus of the study confused.

3. A month scale should be added to the time axis in Figure 4.

4. Figure 5: When analyzing the correlation between UAV-derived VIs and phenocam-derived greenness, were the greenness and vegetation indices extracted from the entire growing season? How were the 26 plots determined?

5. Several vegetation indices derived from UAV multispectral imagery were calculated and their correlation with the greenness and GPP was analyzed in the results section. If the indicative vegetation index could be determined through these comparisons, the significance of this study will be highlighted.

6. Discussion in 4.1.2: It seems unnecessary to discuss the advantages of UAV-based monitoring.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides valuable information on the peatland RS greenness dynamics and carbon exchange. I recommend to publish it aftre addressing a few questions below. I also propose to consider some minor modifications as below.

Questions:

Please state explicitly how you define a „dry spell” (start and end) in the study (I am sorry having not found it ) perhaps in the method section. Please give arguments why you consider a specific date as a start and end of a dry spell.

Please discuss why the GPP-Gcc coreltions are higher during the green-down than during the green-up periods.

Please compare (discuss) Reco values during active (~sink) and stressed (~source periods).

 

Minor issues:

l 22. If it allows you  - then have a statement about it, please (in the abstract, too).

l. 37-39. : Vegetation period might become longer  - but could you please mention here the droughts, interrupting/shortening the VP length? Chance of longer growing season is not real for perhaps the majority of the communities. Increased GSL in northern ecosystems still may happen -  but you also mention drought spells affecting your study site.

 

l 63 – Have you addressed the mediator role of phenology in the study?

l. 246, Table 2. Proper spelling of  Juncus effusus (i.e. not „effuses”). Same two lines above: change  „caerulea” to „coerulea”

l 300. Did you mean local extremes?

l. 350-352. Please explain why the GPP90 is better used than average or total (GPP) to reduce the impacts of gaps (why one would use daily average GPP instead of GPP90 as indicator of max,. photosynthetic uptake?).

l. 475 From May to August, not the reverse (or  not in the same year?)   

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop