Coastal Inlet Analysis by Image Color Intensity Variations: Implications for the Barrier Coast of Ukraine
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSolid paper. Minor revisions. Some comments and feedback below.
Line 39 'To date' redundant, phrase not needed
Line 109 – pick one, microtidal or micro-tidal
Line 115 – have large fraction – awkward wording
Line 154 – ‘as discussed below’
Line 271 – the bathymetric transects are not well explained. Who, what, how (equipment used). Either describe in the methods or cite the study if the data is published.
Line 275-280 – please explain a bit more the inversion of the GS process. This is an interpretation, and is logical, but it needs some more detail
Line 267 - LI – Lazurnenska Inlet is shown on the figure but not in the caption
Line 281 – if this figure is the profile shown in figure 6B, both captions (6/7) should reflect that.
306 – are all the images from Google Earth for the temporal analysis? How do you ensure the exact same spatial extent of the images working in GE (vs. ArcMap or another GIS)
Lines 323-331; the conceptual figure is helpful, I think this section could lay the details out a bit more clearly on what the conceptual model shows. I find 10B way more intuitive, I think 10A needs more explanation. How do the symbols and labels compare to the aerial image inset? Could this also be applied in a similar way to the tidal inlets?
Line 361 – typo/missing letter
Author Response
Line 39 'To date' redundant, phrase not needed
REMOVED
Line 109 – pick one, microtidal or micro-tidal
ALL CHANGED TO MICROTIDAL(NOT HYPHENATED)
Line 115 – have large fraction – awkward wording
REWORDED
Line 154 – ‘as discussed below’
ADDED
Line 271 – the bathymetric transects are not well explained. Who, what, how (equipment used). Either describe in the methods or cite the study if the data is published.
METHODS LISTED IN THE BEGINNING OF METHODS SECTION
Line 275-280 – please explain a bit more the inversion of the GS process. This is an interpretation, and is logical, but it needs some more detail
GS INVERSION IS INDICATED ON LINE 199 AS GS VALUE SUBTRACTED FROM 256 (SO BLACK CHANGES FROM 0 TO 256, WHITE FROM 256 TO 0, ETC.)
Line 267 - LI – Lazurnenska Inlet is shown on the figure but not in the caption
"LI" ADDED TO FIG. 6B CAPTION
Line 281 – if this figure is the profile shown in figure 6B, both captions (6/7) should reflect that.
PROFILE LOCATION ADDED TO FIG. 7
306 – are all the images from Google Earth for the temporal analysis? How do you ensure the exact same spatial extent of the images working in GE (vs. ArcMap or another GIS)
THESE ARE LARGE-SCALE COLOR-INTENSITY CHANGES, SO EXACT LOCATIONS (BEYOND LAT/LONG-BASED END POINTS) ARE NOT REQUIRED
Lines 323-331; the conceptual figure is helpful, I think this section could lay the details out a bit more clearly on what the conceptual model shows. I find 10B way more intuitive, I think 10A needs more explanation. How do the symbols and labels compare to the aerial image inset? Could this also be applied in a similar way to the tidal inlets?
FIG. 10A SHOWS HYPOTHETICAL COLOR-INTENSITY VALUES, WHICH ARE INDICATED USING COLOR-SCALE (BLUE-RED) RATHER THAN 256-SHADE GRAYSCALE FOR EASY REFERENCE. SPECIFIC COLOR/SHADE HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE TEXT REFERRING TO FIG. 10A.
Line 361 – typo/missing letter
CORRECTED
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe present paper describes the simple method of analysis of coastal landforms by using commonly used satellite images with spectral analysis. Authors’ method is useful for the landform analysis by non-specialist of remote sensing. However, authors are never successful in describing the scientific values of authors’ method. Therefore, authors should make revision of the manuscript and describe the originality and validity of the authors’ method.
Authors should cite the literature of the preceding research paper and should describe how authors improved the previously published methods. Classification of landforms by using original satellite images is possible and authors additionally use image color-intensity and grayscale values for the categorization of landforms. How do these additional methods improve the accuracy of methods using original satellite images?
Authors should evaluate the accuracy of authors’ method. Boundaries of landforms should exactly correspond to the thresholds of spectrum or gray gradation. Water depth should be accurately evaluated by variables obtained from satellite images. Authors should add data showing evidence that authors’ method is highly accurate.
The paper will be evaluated after appropriate revision by authors.
Author Response
Authors should cite the literature of the preceding research paper and should describe how authors improved the previously published methods.
ONLY ONE PAPER ABOUT THIS METHOD HAS BEEN PUBLISHED IN A NON-REFEREED JOURNAL (CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS - BUYNEVICH ND DAVYDOV, 2024)
Classification of landforms by using original satellite images is possible and authors additionally use image color-intensity and grayscale values for the categorization of landforms. How do these additional methods improve the accuracy of methods using original satellite images?
THE PROPOSED ICI METHOD IS NOT DESIGNED TO SUBSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL SATELLITE IMAGES. RATHER, IT SUBDIVIDES THE VISUAL INFORMATION INTO 256-SHADE SPECTRUM, WHICH ALLOWS FOR QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF RELATIVE COLOR INTENSITY, WHICH IN TURN, IS RELATED TO SPECIFIC GEOMORPHIC ELEMENTS (SAND VS WATER), LITHOLOGY (LIGHT VS HEAVY MINERALS), OR GROUND COVER (VEGETATION). THEREFORE, ICI METHODS ALLOWS A RAPID QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS, WHICH IS OTHERWISE ACHIEVED ONLY BY LABOR-INTENSIVE SPECTRAL METHODS.
Comment 2: Authors should evaluate the accuracy of authors’ method. Boundaries of landforms should exactly correspond to the thresholds of spectrum or gray gradation. Water depth should be accurately evaluated by variables obtained from satellite images. Authors should add data showing evidence that authors’ method is highly accurate.
BECAUSE THE GENERAL TRENDS (IN THIS CASE, LARGELY RELATED TO WATER DEPTH) ARE ASSESSED, EXACT LANDFORM BOUNDARIES ARE NOT EXPECTED TO COINCIDE BETWEEN IMAGES. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE FOR TEMPORAL CHANGES. SPECIFIC BENCHMARK (ROADS AND OTHER ANTHROPOGENIC INFRASTRUCTURE) HAVE BEEN USED, WHERE AVAILABLE, TO IMPROVE THE ACCURACY OF IMAGE OVERLAYS. FINALLY, THRESHOLDING WAS USED IN ONLY ONE EXAMPLE (FIGURE 4C, E, F) TO SHOW COMPARISON TO LIDAR BATHYMETRY AND ALLOW ISOLATION OF SPECIFIC ELEMENTS (SHOAL, CHANNEL) FOR AREA AND PERIMETER MEASUREMENTS.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper focuses on the morphological analysis of non-tidal inlet channels using image color-intensity (ICI) analysis. The authors note correctly that these environments have not been thoroughly studied. As such this paper provides a refreshing, understandable, and novel approach to this type of analysis. The paper examines the morphological elements of tidal and non-tidal inlets using an innovative image color-intensity (ICI) analysis to assess bathymetric and topographic features. The focus on microtidal and non-tidal systems—complemented by a comparative analysis of sites in Massachusetts, USA, and the Black Sea coast of Ukraine—provides a comprehensive view of inlet dynamics under varied hydrodynamic conditions. Thus, the paper provides an insightful exploration of coastal inlets and their significance in sedimentological, ecological, and hydrological contexts.
A key strength of the study is the employment of ICI as a rapid and cost-effective tool for visualizing and quantifying inlet morphodynamics. By converting satellite and aerial imagery into grayscale spectra, the authors illustrate how depth, channel morphology, and sedimentary features can be analyzed. This methodology is particularly compelling for inaccessible or conflict-affected regions, such as Ukraine's coastlines, showcasing the adaptability of remote sensing in challenging environments. One of the study’s highlights is its application of ICI to monitor temporal changes in inlet morphology which provides useful insights into inlet lifecycle patterns.
Things to consider: the paper would benefit from more discussion on the limitations of ICI, particularly under varying environmental factors like cloud cover or vegetation. Additionally, further exploration of how these findings could inform coastal management and hazard mitigation strategies would enhance the paper’s practical implications.
Second, I think the authors have exceeded what I believe to be a reasonable level of self-citation. Fitzgerald has 13, Buynevich has 19, and Davydoiv eight.
Overall, this paper is a valuable contribution to coastal geoscience, offering novel tools and perspectives for studying a dynamic coastal environment.
Author Response
Comment 1; the paper would benefit from more discussion on the limitations of ICI, particularly under varying environmental factors like cloud cover or vegetation. Additionally, further exploration of how these findings could inform coastal management and hazard mitigation strategies would enhance the paper’s practical implications.
LIMITATIONS OF THE METHOD ARE TREATED IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE METHODS SECTION, WITH SPECIFIC ISSUES (DARK VALUES FOR DEEPER WATER, HEAVY MINERALS, AND VEGETATION; LIGHT FOR BARE SAND, WAVE FOAM, AND SNOW). THE UTILITY OF SOME OF THESE DUAL CAUSES IS ALSO HIGHLIGHTED.
SOME APPLICATIONS TO COASTAL MANAGEMENT ARE MENTIONED AT THE END OF SECTION 5 - POTENTIAL STABILITY OF CLOSED INLET SITES OCCUPIED BY DUNES BUT CONSIDERED INLET-HAZARD ZONES, AS WELL AS THE FOCUS OF THIS STUDY - APPLICATIONS TO INACCESSIBLE REGIONS OR ANALYSIS OF ARCHIVAL IMAGES. NEW SENTENCE IS INCLUDED, WHICH RELATES TO TEMPORAL CHANGES RELATED TO SAND BURIAL (STORMS/TSUNAMIS) OF DARKER-ICI SITES (LIGHTENING) AND SUBSEQUENT RE-VEGETATION (DARKENING).
Comment 2: Second, I think the authors have exceeded what I believe to be a reasonable level of self-citation. Fitzgerald has 13, Buynevich has 19, and Davydoiv eight.
THE MAIN REASON FOR SELF-CITATIONS IS THE NOVEL APPROACH AND THE LIMITED RESEARCH ALONG THE BLACK SEA SITES, LARGELY PERFORMED BY THE SECOND AUTHOR PRIOR TO FULL-SCALE MILITARY CONFLICT AND OCCUPATION OF THE STUDY SITES. IN ADDITIONAL, SOME CO-AUTHORED PAPERS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THIS ARE DUE TO BASIC RESEARCH ON TH ETOPIC CONDUCTED BY THE FIRST AND THIRD AUTHORS.
STILL, WE RECOGNIZE THIS IS AN ISSUE AND HAVE REPLACED THESE FIVE CITATIONS WITH ARTICLES BY OTHER AUTHORS: 9, 12, 42, 64, and 66.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for allowing the opportunity to review this interesting and well-written manuscript. The authors present a novel method for deriving inlet hypsometry and morphometry from satellite imagery, with examples from the United States and Ukraine.
Image color-intensity (ICI) analysis expressed as grayscale (GS) values helps determine relative elevations across three inlet systems with existing in-situ elevation data. The same method is applied to a fourth inlet without in-situ elevation data.
This is a novel method for determining certain inlet morphometrics, and I agree with the authors it represents a useful approach for monitoring inlet conditions at sites with access restrictions. That being said, I have doubts about the efficacy of this method in certain environments. To their credit, the authors acknowledge particular settings in which their approach requires some fine-tuning.
I recommend the manuscript be accepted with minor changes listed line-by-line below.
Line 127-128: correct syntax of "Thresholding is used focus on a specific..."
Figures 6c and 8a: correct spelling of "channels"
Figure 7: the x-axes in the Elevation and G-scale graphics should be aligned. It appears as though this may produce a better match between the measured and GS-estimated elevations.
Line 361: correct spelling of "higher"
Author Response
Line 127-128: correct syntax of "Thresholding is used focus on a specific..."
CORRECTED
Figures 6c and 8a: correct spelling of "channels"
CORRECTED AND FIGURE 7A INSET CHANGED FROM B&W TO COLOR
Figure 7: the x-axes in the Elevation and G-scale graphics should be aligned. It appears as though this may produce a better match between the measured and GS-estimated elevations.
THE SCALE HAS BEEN ADJUSTED FOR BOTH PROFILES AND LIMITED TO 0-200 M STRETCH. SOME SHIFT IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE GS PROFILE IS FROM THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR (2021) AND SOME MORPHOLOGICAL ELEMENTS LIKELY SHIFTED FROM THE TIME OF THE BATHYMETRIC MEASUREMENT.
Line 361: correct spelling of "higher"
CORRECTED
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am sorry but I cannot find any improvements in descriptions on originality and scientific validity of authors' method. Therefore, unfortunately, I cannot make a decision of acceptance.
