Geomorphological Characterization of the Colombian Orinoquia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: land-3891959

Title: Geomorphological Characterization of the Colombian Ori-noquia by Larry Niño et al.

Journal: Land

The study has significant potential to advance understanding of landscape classification and its influence on regional physiography. However, while the scientific content is promising, the manuscript requires substantial revisions in structure, clarity, and presentation, and should be resubmitted after major revision.

Specific points for improvement include:

1. Section 2.2 Study Area (lines 146–172): This section should primarily describe the natural and geographic characteristics of the study area, such as geographic location, boundaries, rivers, topography, climate, and vegetation types. This provides readers with essential territorial and environmental context. The parts detailing elevation thresholds, river basins, and boundaries of physiographic units (Foothills, La Macarena, Floodplain, High Plains) are methodological, i.e., they describe how the authors delineated the units. These details should be moved to the Methods section, rather than being included in the Study Area description.
2. Figure 2: The figure should illustrate the workflow more clearly. In its current form, it is not sufficiently informative. It should indicate the specific input data, software/platforms used, and the models or outputs generated at each step.
3. Results section: The authors cite previous studies when presenting their findings. To align with standard scientific conventions, references to literature should generally be included in the Discussion, where results are interpreted in the context of prior research. Moving these references to the Discussion would not only improve clarity but also enhance the perceived significance of the study’s own results.
4. Conclusions section: Currently, the Conclusions are longer than the Discussion and excessively long (two pages). This suggests that interpretation and contextualization of the results are insufficiently addressed. The Conclusions should be substantially shortened to focus on the main findings and their implications, avoiding repetition of detailed results or methodological descriptions, while the Discussion should be expanded to properly interpret and contextualize the study’s results.

Overall, the manuscript presents valuable data and methodology, but major revisions are required to improve clarity, logical structure, and alignment with standard scientific conventions.

Author Response

Esteemed Reviewer,

Thank you sincerely for your valuable observations and feedback regarding our manuscript. In the current version, you will find the revisions corresponding to the Study Area section (lines 146-172), Figure 2, as well as those pertaining to the Results and Conclusions sections.

Kind regards,

Prof. Dr. Vladimir Minorta-Cely
vminortac@ucentral.edu.co

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work addresses the issue of geomorphological mapping methodology using modern, state-of-the-art tools. The work has significant scientific value due to the comparison of results with those developed by previous authors for the study region. Unfortunately, information and citations regarding these differences alone are insufficient. I would encourage the authors to graphically present the differences in the geomorphological studies of the selected area and explain the reasons for these differences. The terrain can be difficult to access, so the use of modern DEM and machine learning methods significantly facilitates the mapping of large areas. However, it is important to remember that although man often make mistakes, they engage in self-reflection and self-criticism. A machine cannot do this and unconditionally conducts analyses based on the obtained data. Therefore, it would be beneficial to include at least one figure indicating the differences in the studies and the reasons for them. The second, more significant error, in the reviewer's opinion, is the excessive information content in the conclusions. Only the last two paragraphs maintain the form of the conclusions, and the remaining explanations for the individual units included in the study should be included in the discussion. A brief summary of this topic in the conclusions should present the overall result/problem discussed by the authors. Conclusions that are longer than the discussion are pointless. Overall, the paper is well-written and presented clearly. There are only a few technical errors rather than substantive ones, which the reviewer pointed out below. The paper is also linguistically correct. However, I recommend revising the conclusions primarily in relation to the discussion and considering supplementing the paper with additional graphical analysis demonstrating the differences between the presented geomorphological mapping method and the results of previous authors cited in the manuscript. The paper is suitable for publication with minor corrections. It adds value to geomorphological research and should be published after the necessary corrections have been made.

 

Line 30-32 -  (i) should be with a capital letter

Line 110 – same here

Line 113 – same here

Line 152 – “Foothils” It seems that these names should be written in lowercase. These are not proper names, although the reviewer understands why the authors use this spelling in relation to the area of ​​research.

Line 153 – same here

Line 158 – same here

Line 170 – same here

Line 171 – same here, and in the rest of the paper

Line 181-194 - (i) should be with a capital letter

Line 238-243 – same here

Line 290 – Missing leading space in quote 38]

Line 511 – The conclusions seem too long compared to the rest of the article. The conclusions should briefly present the authors' considerations regarding the results obtained and their interpretation. Much of the information contained here should be included in the discussion. The final two paragraphs are the actual conclusions, but it is not appropriate to describe in detail each unit analyzed in the work, specifying its characteristics. This should be included in the discussion, or limited to a few sentences about the entire research area. The conclusions should easily present the reader with the summary information resulting from this work.

Line 536-538 - (i) should be with a capital letter

 

Figures:

Figure 1 – There is no legend relating to the colors on the map or in the figure captions. What do they mean? The reader will only guess what these divisions mean halfway through the text.

 

 

 

Author Response

Esteemed Reviewer,

 

 

Thank you sincerely for your valuable observations and feedback regarding our manuscript. In the current version, you will find the revisions corresponding to the Study Area section (lines 146-172), Figures1-2, as well as those pertaining to the Results and Conclusions sections.

Kind regards,

Prof. Dr. Vladimir Minorta-Cely
vminortac@ucentral.edu.co

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

TITLE: Geomorphological Characterization of the Colombian Orinoquia

AUTHORS: Larry Niño, Alexis Jaramillo-Justinico, Víctor Villamizar, Orlando Rangel, Vladimir Minorta-Cely & Daniel Sánchez-Mata

The paper concerns an integrated study conducted in the Orinoquía region (Columbia). It presents an interesting array of data; however, some imprecisions undermine the significance of the research and the work conducted. In my opinion, the paper can be approved after major revisions.

In my opinion, a definition of physiographic units is necessary, as well as for structural-environment units or structurally related environments.

Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6 pertain to the resulting geomorphological maps, as clearly explained. Additionally, I believe that examples of the maps derived from the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) would be appropriate.

Line 29-33  “The analysis identified four major physiographic units: (i) the Foothills and the Floodplain, both dominated by fluvial environments; (ii) the High plains and Serranía de La Macarena (Macarena Mountain Range), where denudational processes predominate; and (iii) localized aeolian environments embedded within the Floodplain.”

The sentence reports “four major physiographic units (Line 29-30), but just three are reported (i line 30, ii line 31, iii line 32).

I suggest modifying the sentence as follows.

The analysis identified four major physiographic units: (i) the Foothills, (ii) the Floodplain, (iii) the High Plain, and (iv) the Serranía de La Macarena (Macarena Mountain Range). The first two units are dominated by fluvial environments, while denudational processes are predominant in the last two. Additionally, localized aeolian environments are found within the Floodplain, and a structurally related environment characterizes the Foothills and the Serranía de La Macarena  areas.,  

Line 178 Figure 1

In my opinion, Figure 1 needs an accompanying legend to explain the colours used.

Author Response

Esteemed Reviewer,

Thank you most sincerely for your insightful and constructive observations on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the meticulous attention to detail you have provided. 

We trust this revision addresses the point raised and integrates the necessary corrections into a more coherent and accurate description.

Kind regards,

Prof. Dr. Vladimir Minorta-Cely
vminortac@ucentral.edu.co

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work synthesizes a detailed geomorphological study of the Colombian Orinoco region, employing advanced remote sensing and machine learning techniques to produce a regional-scale analytical relief map.

The proposal combines Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and DEM images from Alos, processing the data in the Google Earth Engine Platform and using a Random Forest (RF) classifier. The authors use the Kappa coefficient to validate the data and define good overall accuracies.

The proposal presents a fairly consistent discrimination of relief units, compared to the geomorphological and regional characteristics of the area, allowing for the discrimination of units related to fluvial, denudational, and aeolian processes.

The methodology could be better detailed. Although it presents general aspects of the procedures performed, it would be interesting to further detail the aspects of the training variables used. The scale generalization process itself, what procedures were followed, and why was it used? Was the model's accuracy applied to the generated result or to the result after scale generalization?

How were the physiographic units incorporated into the results? Were they merely final cuts to improve the analyses and descriptions, were they incorporated into the identification of relief units, or were they processed separately for each area? This is not clear in the work.

I suggest that the model validation data be included in the results. The discussions present some elements of accuracy and report some associated problems. I believe this data should be presented in the results to better inform the discussions, as well as to guide possible applications of the methodology in other areas.

The conclusions present elements that could characterize the study area, highlighting the relevance of the work, as it presents elements that are not directly related to the results but are relevant to the study area.

The references used in the work's foundation, in the application of the methodology, and in the discussions are appropriate and meet the proposed and developed objectives.

Figure 1 needs improvement, including a caption to identify the spatial divisions represented by the colors on the map.

Author Response

Esteemed Reviewer,

We extend our sincere gratitude for your valuable observations and feedback regarding our manuscript. We have carefully considered your comments, and would like to provide the following clarification, which is reflected in the current version of the manuscript. 

We trust this revision addresses the point raised and integrates the necessary corrections into a more coherent and accurate description.

Kind regards,

Prof. Dr. Vladimir Minorta-Cely
vminortac@ucentral.edu.co

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Your manuscript “Geomorphological Characterization of the Colombian Orinoquia” is well written, clear, and commendable for its thoroughness and analytical consistency. It excels in presenting a replicable workflow that combines radar and topographic datasets for physiographic discrimination at the regional scale. The geomorphological subdivision into Foothills, La Macarena, Floodplain, and High Plains is clearly justified by both geological and morphometric criteria.

However, a few points can be addressed and improved further. The introduction could be condensed to better emphasize the novelty of the study and the specific research gaps addressed. In the methods, the parameter optimization of the Random Forest classifier (number of trees, sampling strategy) is clearly explained. Still, the rationale for choosing specific variables (e.g., convexity, roughness) could be better justified regarding their geomorphic relevance. The accuracy assessment section would gain from briefly comparing model performance with other ML algorithms applied in similar contexts.

Please revise for grammatical accuracy (especially verb tense agreement), improve figure readability, and consider including a concise comparative table of the four physiographic units. Figures are generally high quality, but legends should be made more readable. Also, several map labels appear too small for the print scale (even for in-screen reading), and scale bars should be harmonized.

Additionally, a short table summarizing each unit's areal extent and dominant processes would improve comparative understanding. Clarifying the geomorphological implications of the classification accuracy and its potential transferability to other Neotropical regions would further strengthen the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Occasional grammatical inconsistencies—particularly the misuse of verb tenses (e.g., future instead of past)—should be corrected for smoother narrative continuity. 

Author Response

Esteemed Reviewer,

Thank you once again for your invaluable observations and comments on our manuscript. We have thoroughly considered your feedback, and in the revised version you will find the requested modifications implemented. 

We believe these revisions address the points raised and strengthen the methodological clarity of the manuscript. We are deeply grateful for the time and expertise you have dedicated to its evaluation.

Kind regards,

Prof. Dr. Vladimir Minorta-Cely
vminortac@ucentral.edu.co

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors
Hope you are doing well
This research is on topic "Geomorphological Characterization of the Colombian Orinoquia". In this manuscript researchers utilizing DEM and SAR data assessed with Random Forest algorithm to create gemorphological model of Orinoquia. First, the research is very interesting, as creation of gemorphological model is always a difficult task. I was very surprised by the result, you got utilizing GEE and RF algorithm with such low amount of data. I think this research is very important for range of different disciplines: geology, remote sensing, geomorphology, geodiversity, biodiversity and others...
Now the presentation itself is bad. I will explain everything by sections:
1. Introduction is good but require some additional information and clear outline of the aim.
2. Methodology. I would like to see more deeper explanation more figures, tables, and parameters you used for assessment.
3. Result is bad. It contain too much of unnecessary information. Plus, the information presented there is very hard to connect to the figures.
4. Discussion section contain some information which better to transfer to result section for example Kappa. Then, I would suggest to divide it on sub-sections and improve the structure.
5. Conclusion is too long and contain new information, which better to be presented in the Discussion.

And overall, provide clear reason and aim for your research. Outline methodology to reach your aim. Show your result. Discuss how your result is answering the aim and the reason, show the limitations of your methodology, suggest future research. In conclusion sum-up the main points of the Discussion.

In my opinion, this research contain all required information. It is just have to be better explained.
More detailed comments you can find in attached PDF.
I wish you a good scientific achievements.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Esteemed Reviewer,

Thank you once again for your invaluable observations and comments on our manuscript. We have thoroughly considered your feedback, and in the revised version you will find the requested modifications implemented. 

We believe these revisions address the points raised and strengthen the methodological clarity of the manuscript. We are deeply grateful for the time and expertise you have dedicated to its evaluation.

Kind regards,

Prof. Dr. Vladimir Minorta-Cely
vminortac@ucentral.edu.co

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: land-3891959
Title: Geomorphological Characterization of the Colombian Ori-noquia by Larry Niño et al.
Journal: Land

The manuscript has been significantly improved compared to the previous version. The authors have improved its structure, significantly improving its coherence and readability. Figure 2 has also been significantly improved. Stylistic errors have been removed. In its current form, the article is ready for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for your reply. In my opinion, your paper can be approved in its present form.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work is well structured, with scientific and technical soundness, and can be published.
The authors made changes to the current version of the work, which improved the flow and comprehension of the results obtained and discussed.

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good day authors

Hope you are doing well

The last update of your manuscript looks very good, some figures still can be improved with better quality and bigger legends but they are okay.

I suggest to add in the text citation for the Figure 1.

Best wishes