Anthropogenic Impact on Beach Heterogeneity within a Littoral Cell (Northern Tuscany, Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is interesting, full of useful information and the subject is worthy of research. However, the presentation of the article requires some improvements to proceed with its publication in the
journal in my opinion because this research is presented as a technical report rather than a scientific paper. For this I advise a major revision to the authors in the following points:
-In introduction authors miss number of recent articles that deals with coastal monitoring activities and costal trend assessment. There are
number of systems, monitoring techniques and different models that are use for this issue. Authors do not cite any of them just generalize that such need exists. Please rewrite this part as it appears that this will be
the crucial part of the article.
-Finally, since the introduction does not give a full overview of techniques and methods used for coastal
assessment it is unclear to me what is the significance and innovation of the work discussed in the paper,
compared to other similar works. Please emphasize this and show in general what is new in this approach.
-Again I miss real discussion. Authors repeat their results and state some other ones but there is no real
discussion between their and other results. Please rewrite it so that more it will deliberate more with
different articles or works comparing different methods.

Author Response

REVIEWER #1

 

The article is interesting, full of useful information and the subject is worthy of research. However, the presentation of the article requires some improvements to proceed with its publication in the

journal in my opinion because this research is presented as a technical report rather than a scientific paper. For this I advise a major revision to the authors in the following points:

 

1- In introduction authors miss number of recent articles that deals with coastal monitoring activities and costal trend assessment. There are number of systems, monitoring techniques and different models that are use for this issue. Authors do not cite any of them just generalize that such need exists. Please rewrite this part as it appears that this will be the crucial part of the article.

• We agree with Reviewer #1 that we’ve been too vague while presenting this part of the manuscript. We now specify some of these techniques Reviewer #1 refers to in the Introduction (lines 53-58). However, the purpose of the paper wasn’t actually the presentation of a new system/approach to coastal monitoring (as we stated in the Introduction, lines 62-65): our intention was to build a complete geodatabase of any protection scheme (both hard and soft) in order to make an assessment of coastline evolution in the area. Such a geodatabase would be a complement of any other existing coastal monitoring system, and not replace them. Clearly, this information was a bit unclear, so we clarified it in the Conclusions (lines 486-489) accordingly.

 

2- Finally, since the introduction does not give a full overview of techniques and methods used for coastal assessment it is unclear to me what is the significance and innovation of the work discussed in the paper, compared to other similar works. Please emphasize this and show in general what is new in this approach.

• As above mentioned, we clarified that our intention wasn’t to present a new coastal monitoring system. The modification to the Conclusions should now wipe out the uncertainty about it (lines 486-489).

 

3- Again I miss real discussion. Authors repeat their results and state some other ones but there is no real discussion between their and other results. Please rewrite it so that more it will deliberate more with different articles or works comparing different methods.

• As we explained that the purpose of the paper wasn’t to introduce a new coastal monitoring system, we would be inclined to think that a comparison with different approaches would be out of place in the present manuscript. However, in accordance with the observations raised by Reviewer #3, we agree that the paper lacks an international appeal. We added a paragraph with references to some other study cases (lines 434-444).

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I enjoyed reading your manuscript, well written, well structured, well argued, well illustrated and based on a voluminous bibliography whose references are all well cited in the text. I think that this work is a good synthesis of the literature about the Tuscany coast and it also brings some novelties (study of the coastline in the 20^th century and the impact of anthropogenic infrastructures). This paper will be a useful synthesis for the sustainable management of beaches in the region. It will also be a very good case study for students.
I therefore have few remarks to make. Could you please take them into account? Thank you very much.

Abstract
Line16: This paper does not deal very much with the nineteenth century period. It focuses on the twentieth century.

2. The study area
Line 66: "The rocky coast ...", add a bibliographic reference (even one already in the bibliography).
Figure 1: enlarge the size of the yellow fonts.
Lines 93-97 : "Sea state characterization ...", add a bibliographic reference.

3. Materials and Methods
Table 1 and table 2: it could be very useful and convenient to include these elements as a key in the maps.
Line 127: have you estimated the margin of error of the digitalization?

4. Results
Line 186-187: "The negative effects ...", add a bibliographical reference.
Line 269 : "at the beggining of the erosional phase", add a bibliographical reference.
Line 331 : "huge volume of sand", well, may be not globally "huge" compared to volumes provided for example in the Netherlands or in North of France, but relatively important for this sector of coast.

6. Conclusions
Line 474: "We believe ...", it is more than a belief, it is a well-defended argument. It would be better to say "We think...".

Figures: they should be enlarged to be more legible if possible.

Author Response

REVIEWER #2

 

Dear authors,                    

 

I enjoyed reading your manuscript, well written, well structured, well argued, well illustrated and based on a voluminous bibliography whose references are all well cited in the text. I think that this work is a good synthesis of the literature about the Tuscany coast and it also brings some novelties (study of the coastline in the 20th century and the impact of anthropogenic infrastructures). This paper will be a useful synthesis for the sustainable management of beaches in the region. It will also be a very good case study for students.

I therefore have few remarks to make. Could you please take them into account? Thank you very much.

 

Abstract

1- Line16: This paper does not deal very much with the nineteenth century period. It focuses on the twentieth century.

• We replaced “nineteenth” with “twentieth” in the text (line 16).

 

The study area

2- Line 66: "The rocky coast ...", add a bibliographic reference (even one already in the bibliography).

• We added a relevant reference as requested (line 70).

 

3- Figure 1: enlarge the size of the yellow fonts.

• Figure 1 is now modified accordingly.

 

4- Lines 93-97 : "Sea state characterization ...", add a bibliographic reference.

• We added a couple of relevant references as requested (line 101).

 

Materials and Methods

5- Table 1 and table 2: it could be very useful and convenient to include these elements as a key in the maps.

• Figures 2-9 are now modified accordingly. As now the keys are included in the maps, we deleted the reference to Tables 1 and 2 for the colors from the captions.

 

6- Line 127: have you estimated the margin of error of the digitalization?

• We included a column in Table 2 showing the margin of error of the digitalization of each coastline.

 

Results

7- Line 186-187: "The negative effects ...", add a bibliographical reference.

• We added a relevant reference as requested (line 192).

 

8- Line 269 : "at the beggining of the erosional phase", add a bibliographical reference.

• We added a relevant reference as requested (line 269).

 

9- Line 331 : "huge volume of sand", well, may be not globally "huge" compared to volumes provided for example in the Netherlands or in North of France, but relatively important for this sector of coast.

• We included a couple of references to the experiences in France and in the Netherlands, clarifying that the volumes involved are definitely different (lines 330-332).

 

Conclusions

10- Line 474: "We believe ...", it is more than a belief, it is a well-defended argument. It would be better to say "We think...".

• As suggested, we replaced “we believe” with “we think” (line 485).

 

11- Figures: they should be enlarged to be more legible if possible.

• We enlarged all the figures; they should be more legible now.

Reviewer 3 Report

Three area the main deficiencies of this work:

 

1. The authors have based their discussion only on the coastline changes nearby to anthropogenic constructions and interventions BUT without link these changes to nearshore hydrodynamics (wave activity, closure depth, depth of breaking, nearshore currents etc).

In this context the use of term “cell” is wrong, as cells refer to circulation cells (see Carter RWG, 1988, pp.205-212 !!!) whose spatial area governed by the existence and direction of longshore currents and supplementary by sediment pathways

2. This manuscript is concentrated to this specific (no doubt for being very interning) coastal sector but without presenting any comparison with other areas (at least from the Mediterranean countries) which are facing similar problems. You have to give an international character .
3. The authors have also to improve the English languish, there are expressions written in English but…thinking in Italian…

 

A minor comment: In the introduction it is written that SLR can goa up to 1,2 m. But according to the latest publication from IPCC the worst scenario RCP 8.5 goes up to 0.82 m…

 

Please consider the following references

 

For nearshore hydrodynamics

Ferretti, O., Niccolai, I., Tucci, S., Setti, M., & Immordino, F. (1992). Transport and distribution of sediments along the Ligurian coast. Hydrobiologia, 235(1), 17-32.

Cosma, B., Drago, M., Piccazzo, M., Scarponi, G., & Tucci, S. (1979). Heavy metals in Ligurian Sea sediments: distribution of Cr, Cu, Ni, and Mn in superficial sediments. Marine Chemistry, 8(2), 125-142.

Schiaffino, C. F., Dessy, C. L. A. U. D. I. A., Corradi, N. I. C. O. L. A., Fierro, G., & Ferrari, M. (2015). Morphodynamics of a gravel beach protected by a detached low-crested breakwater. The case of Levanto (eastern Ligurian Sea, Italy). Ital. J. Eng. Geol. Environ, 15, 31-39.

 

Onorati, F., Virno Lamberti, C., Pulcini, M., Ausili, A., Gabellini, M., & Pellegrini, D. (2002). A multidisciplinary investigation of a perturbated area along the Ligurian coast. Matrix, 5(15), 30.

Berriolo, G., Cabella, R., Ferrari, M., & Montefalcone, M. SEDIMENT BYPASS FROM THE LITTORAL CELL IN GRAVEL POCKET BEACHES OF THE LIGURIAN SEA (NW MEDITERRANEAN).

Ruju, A., Ibba, A., Porta, M., Buosi, C., Passarella, M., & De Muro, S. (2018). The role of hydrodynamic forcing, sediment transport processes and bottom substratum in the shoreward development of Posidonia oceanica meadow. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 212, 63-72.

Ferrari, M., Cabella, R., Berriolo, G., & Montefalcone, M. (2014). Gravel sediment bypass between contiguous littoral cells in the NW Mediterranean Sea. Journal of Coastal Research, 30(1), 183-191.

Cavazza, W., Immordino, F., Moretti, L., Peirano, A., Pironi, A., & Ruggiero, F. (2000). Sedimentological parameters and seagrasses distributions as indicators of anthropogenic coastal degradation at Monterosso Bay (Ligurian Sea, NW Italy). Journal of Coastal Research, 295-305.

Casella, E., Rovere, A., Pedroncini, A., Stark, C. P., Casella, M., Ferrari, M., & Firpo, M. (2016). Drones as tools for monitoring beach topography changes in the Ligurian Sea (NW Mediterranean). Geo-Marine Letters, 36(2), 151-163.

Casella, E., Rovere, A., Pedroncini, A., Mucerino, L., Casella, M., Cusati, L. A., ... & Firpo, M. (2014). Study of wave runup using numerical models and low-altitude aerial photogrammetry: A tool for coastal management. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 149, 160-167.

Bertacchi, A., Zuffi, M. A. L., & Lombardi, T. (2016). Foredune psammophilous communities and coastal erosion in a stretch of the Ligurian sea (Tuscany, Italy). Rendiconti Lincei, 27(4), 639-651.

Paoli, C., Gastaudo, I., & Vassallo, P. (2013). The environmental cost to restore beach ecoservices. Ecological engineering, 52, 182-190.

Pranzini, E. (2018). Shore protection in Italy: From hard to soft engineering… and back. Ocean & Coastal Management, 156, 43-57.

Ferrari, M., Bolens, S., Bozzano, A., Fierro, G., & Gentile, R. (2006). The port of Genoa-Voltri (Liguria, Italy): a case of updrift erosion. Chemistry and Ecology, 22(sup1), S361-S369.

Turner, I. L., Harley, M. D., & Drummond, C. D. (2016). UAVs for coastal surveying. Coastal Engineering, 114, 19-24.

 

Ferrari, M., Balduzzi, I., Bozzano, A., & Artom, C. (2005, July). The use of a GIS to evaluate the erosion of the ligurian littoral. In Proceedings of XXII International Cartographic Conference. A Coruna, Spain (pp. 9-16).

Vacchi, M., Misson, G., Montefalcone, M., Archetti, R., Nike Bianchi, C., & Ferrari, M. (2014). Modelling reference conditions for the upper limit of Posidonia oceanica meadows: a morphodynamic approach. EGUGA, 13206.

Mucerino, L., Albarella, M., Carpi, L., Besio, G., Benedetti, A., Corradi, N., ... & Ferrari, M. (2019). Coastal exposure assessment on Bonassola bay. Ocean & coastal management, 167, 20-31.

 

For beach erosion in Greece…

Poulos S.E. and Chronis G. Th., 2001.  Coastline changes in relation to longshore sediment transport and human impact, along the coastline of Kato Achaia (NE Peloponnese, Greece. Mediterranean Marine Science, 2(1): 5-13.

Ghionis G., Poulos S.E. and Karditsa A., 2013. Deltaic coastline retreat due to dam construction: The case of the River Alfios mouth area (Kyparissiakos Gulf, Ionian Sea). Journal of Coastal Research, 65(SI), 2119-2124

Evelpidou Ν., Vassilopoulos A., LeonidopoulouD., PoulosS., 2009.An investigation of the coastal erosion causes in Samos island, eastern Aegean sea. Journal Landscape Ecology, 6(3), 295-310.

 Poulos S.E., Ghionis G., Verykiou E., Roussakis G., Sakellariou D., Karditsa A., Alexandrakis G., Petrakis S., Sifnioti D., Panagiotopoulos I.P., Andris P., Georgiou P, 2015. An insight to the processes controlling the formation and evolution of a barrier beach in a tectonic active region (Lefkada Island, Ionian Sea). GeoMarine Letters, 35(1), 37-52

Alexandrakis G., Poulos S., Ghionis G., and Leivaditis G.¹, 2006. A morphological study of a reef with beachrock characteristics, in association with the recent evolution of the Ammoudara beach zone (Heraklion, Crete). Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece, XXXIX/III, 146-155

Eleftheriou K., Evelpidou N., Poulos S., Andris P., Vassilopoulos A., 2008. An investigation of the evolution of the beach zone of the St. Georgios bay (Naxos island, Aegean Sea), in relation to its morphological and hydrodynamical characteristics. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece, XLII/II, 14-22.

Tsanakas k., Poulos S.E. and Monioudi I, 2017.  Sea level rise impact on the beach zone of Katerini region, NW Aegean Sea. 15^th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology, Rhodes, Greece, 31 August- 2 September 2017, 5p. CEST2017_01282

Author Response

REVIEWER #3

 

Three area the main deficiencies of this work:

 

1- The authors have based their discussion only on the coastline changes nearby to anthropogenic constructions and interventions BUT without link these changes to nearshore hydrodynamics (wave activity, closure depth, depth of breaking, nearshore currents etc).

• We do agree with Reviewer #3 that it should be correct to consider both the subaerial and the submerged portions of the beach, whenever possible. There’s plenty of literature about volume shifting in both directions. However, we also believe that coastline assessments, especially within extended timespans, maintain a degree of usefulness even if they do not evaluate shoreface variations and nearshore hydrodynamics. There’s an increasing list of scientific papers dealing with this topic (e.g., Pranzini, 2001; Anfuso et al., 2011; Anthony et al., 2014; Besset et al., 2017; Besset et al., 2019; Bini et al., 2021). Anyways, we now provide more information about the depth of closure in the Study Area (lines 97-99) along with the information about wave state and sea floor topography.

 

Cited literature:

• Pranzini, E. Updrift river mouth migration on cuspate deltas: two examples from the coast of Tuscany (Italy). Geomorphology 2001, 38, 125–132.
• Anfuso, G.; Pranzini, E.; Vitale, G. An integrated approach to coastal erosion problems in northern Tuscany (Italy): Littoral morphological evolution and cell distribution. Geomorphology 2011, 129, 204–214.
• Anthony, E.J.; Marriner, N.; Morhange, C. Human influence and the changing geomorphology of Mediterranean deltas and coasts over the last 6000years: From progradation to destruction phase? Earth-Science Reviews 2014, 139, 336–361.
• Besset, M.; Anthony, E.J.; Sabatier, F. River delta shoreline reworking and erosion in the Mediterranean and Black Seas: The potential roles of fluvial sediment starvation and other factors. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 2017, 5, 54.
• Besset, M.; Anthony, E.J.; Bouchette, F. Multi-decadal variations in delta shorelines and their relationship to river sediment supply: An assessment and review. Earth-Science Reviews 2019, 193, 199–219.
• Bini, M.; Casarosa, N.; Luppichini, M. Exploring the Relationship between River Discharge and Coastal Erosion: An Integrated Approach Applied to the Pisa Coastal Plain (Italy). Remote Sensing 2021, 13, 226.

 

2- In this context the use of term “cell” is wrong, as cells refer to circulation cells (see Carter RWG, 1988, pp.205-212 !!!) whose spatial area governed by the existence and direction of longshore currents and supplementary by sediment pathways

• The Northern Tuscany coast can be considered a “cell”, as it complies to the requirements described by Carter (1988). We referred to Anfuso et al. (2011) for the separation into sub-cells, because the results of the present manuscript, along with those already published and cited accordingly, show that sediment pathways have been deeply modified by the construction of so many protection structures and nourishments. We basically accepted the definition of “cell” (sensu Anfuso et al., 2011) and we refer to the discussion they made about it. They used “morphological criteria” to identify the sub-cells, also referring to Bray et al. (1995) for cell limit identification. As our results further emphasized the modification to the natural circulation due to human activities in the last century, we suggest using the term “anthropogenic sub-cell” in order to clarify that the natural conditions have been vastly affected by human pressure. We now better specified it in the text (lines 448-452).
• To avoid any ambiguity, we replaced the term “cell” we used to identify the artificial beaches confined within groins and breakwaters with the term “compartment” in accordance with French (2001) and Nordstrom et al. (2008).

 

Cited literature:

• Carter, R.W.G. Coastal environments; Academic Press: London, United Kingdom, 1988; p. 617.
• Anfuso, G.; Pranzini, E.; Vitale, G. An integrated approach to coastal erosion problems in northern Tuscany (Italy): Littoral morphological evolution and cell distribution. Geomorphology 2011, 129, 204–214.
• Bray, M.; Carter, D.; Hooke, J. Littoral cell definition and budgets for central southern England. Journal of Coastal Research 1995, 11, 381–400.
• French, P.W. Coastal Defences – Processes, problems and solutions. Routledge, London, UK, 2001; p. 366.
• Nordstrom, K.F.; Pranzini, E.; Jackson, N.L.; Coli, M. The marble beaches of Tuscany. Geogr. Rev. 2008, 98, 280–300.

 

3- This manuscript is concentrated to this specific (no doubt for being very interning) coastal sector but without presenting any comparison with other areas (at least from the Mediterranean countries) which are facing similar problems. You have to give an international character.

• We totally agree with Reviewer #3. Our intention was to present a study case from the Northern Tuscany, suggesting that the geodatabase we created here might be easily replicated elsewhere; for this reason, we didn’t include any experience from other settings. We now realize that we were wrong. We included a discussion about some study cases from Europe (lines 434-444).

 

4- The authors have also to improve the English languish, there are expressions written in English but…thinking in Italian…

• The text has been now polished by a native English speaker.

 

5- A minor comment: In the introduction it is written that SLR can goa up to 1,2 m. But according to the latest publication from IPCC the worst scenario RCP 8.5 goes up to 0.82 m…

• We corrected the text accordingly (line 36).

 

 

Please consider the following references

 

For nearshore hydrodynamics

 

Ferretti, O., Niccolai, I., Tucci, S., Setti, M., & Immordino, F. (1992). Transport and distribution of sediments along the Ligurian coast. Hydrobiologia, 235(1), 17-32.

 

Cosma, B., Drago, M., Piccazzo, M., Scarponi, G., & Tucci, S. (1979). Heavy metals in Ligurian Sea sediments: distribution of Cr, Cu, Ni, and Mn in superficial sediments. Marine Chemistry, 8(2), 125-142.

 

Schiaffino, C. F., Dessy, C. L. A. U. D. I. A., Corradi, N. I. C. O. L. A., Fierro, G., & Ferrari, M. (2015). Morphodynamics of a gravel beach protected by a detached low-crested breakwater. The case of Levanto (eastern Ligurian Sea, Italy). Ital. J. Eng. Geol. Environ, 15, 31-39.

 

Onorati, F., Virno Lamberti, C., Pulcini, M., Ausili, A., Gabellini, M., & Pellegrini, D. (2002). A multidisciplinary investigation of a perturbated area along the Ligurian coast. Matrix, 5(15), 30.

 

Berriolo, G., Cabella, R., Ferrari, M., & Montefalcone, M. SEDIMENT BYPASS FROM THE LITTORAL CELL IN GRAVEL POCKET BEACHES OF THE LIGURIAN SEA (NW MEDITERRANEAN).

 

Ruju, A., Ibba, A., Porta, M., Buosi, C., Passarella, M., & De Muro, S. (2018). The role of hydrodynamic forcing, sediment transport processes and bottom substratum in the shoreward development of Posidonia oceanica meadow. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 212, 63-72.

 

Ferrari, M., Cabella, R., Berriolo, G., & Montefalcone, M. (2014). Gravel sediment bypass between contiguous littoral cells in the NW Mediterranean Sea. Journal of Coastal Research, 30(1), 183-191.

 

Cavazza, W., Immordino, F., Moretti, L., Peirano, A., Pironi, A., & Ruggiero, F. (2000). Sedimentological parameters and seagrasses distributions as indicators of anthropogenic coastal degradation at Monterosso Bay (Ligurian Sea, NW Italy). Journal of Coastal Research, 295-305.

 

Casella, E., Rovere, A., Pedroncini, A., Stark, C. P., Casella, M., Ferrari, M., & Firpo, M. (2016). Drones as tools for monitoring beach topography changes in the Ligurian Sea (NW Mediterranean). Geo-Marine Letters, 36(2), 151-163.

 

Casella, E., Rovere, A., Pedroncini, A., Mucerino, L., Casella, M., Cusati, L. A., ... & Firpo, M. (2014). Study of wave runup using numerical models and low-altitude aerial photogrammetry: A tool for coastal management. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 149, 160-167.

 

Bertacchi, A., Zuffi, M. A. L., & Lombardi, T. (2016). Foredune psammophilous communities and coastal erosion in a stretch of the Ligurian sea (Tuscany, Italy). Rendiconti Lincei, 27(4), 639-651.

 

Paoli, C., Gastaudo, I., & Vassallo, P. (2013). The environmental cost to restore beach ecoservices. Ecological engineering, 52, 182-190.

 

Pranzini, E. (2018). Shore protection in Italy: From hard to soft engineering… and back. Ocean & Coastal Management, 156, 43-57.

 

Ferrari, M., Bolens, S., Bozzano, A., Fierro, G., & Gentile, R. (2006). The port of Genoa-Voltri (Liguria, Italy): a case of updrift erosion. Chemistry and Ecology, 22(sup1), S361-S369.

 

Turner, I. L., Harley, M. D., & Drummond, C. D. (2016). UAVs for coastal surveying. Coastal Engineering, 114, 19-24.

 

Ferrari, M., Balduzzi, I., Bozzano, A., & Artom, C. (2005, July). The use of a GIS to evaluate the erosion of the ligurian littoral. In Proceedings of XXII International Cartographic Conference. A Coruna, Spain (pp. 9-16).

 

Vacchi, M., Misson, G., Montefalcone, M., Archetti, R., Nike Bianchi, C., & Ferrari, M. (2014). Modelling reference conditions for the upper limit of Posidonia oceanica meadows: a morphodynamic approach. EGUGA, 13206.

 

Mucerino, L., Albarella, M., Carpi, L., Besio, G., Benedetti, A., Corradi, N., ... & Ferrari, M. (2019). Coastal exposure assessment on Bonassola bay. Ocean & coastal management, 167, 20-31.

 

For beach erosion in Greece…

 

Poulos S.E. and Chronis G. Th., 2001.  Coastline changes in relation to longshore sediment transport and human impact, along the coastline of Kato Achaia (NE Peloponnese, Greece. Mediterranean Marine Science, 2(1): 5-13.

 

Ghionis G., Poulos S.E. and Karditsa A., 2013. Deltaic coastline retreat due to dam construction: The case of the River Alfios mouth area (Kyparissiakos Gulf, Ionian Sea). Journal of Coastal Research, 65(SI), 2119-2124

 

Evelpidou Ν., Vassilopoulos A., LeonidopoulouD., PoulosS., 2009.An investigation of the coastal erosion causes in Samos island, eastern Aegean sea. Journal Landscape Ecology, 6(3), 295-310.

 

Poulos S.E., Ghionis G., Verykiou E., Roussakis G., Sakellariou D., Karditsa A., Alexandrakis G., Petrakis S., Sifnioti D., Panagiotopoulos I.P., Andris P., Georgiou P, 2015. An insight to the processes controlling the formation and evolution of a barrier beach in a tectonic active region (Lefkada Island, Ionian Sea). GeoMarine Letters, 35(1), 37-52

 

Alexandrakis G., Poulos S., Ghionis G., and Leivaditis G.1, 2006. A morphological study of a reef with beachrock characteristics, in association with the recent evolution of the Ammoudara beach zone (Heraklion, Crete). Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece, XXXIX/III, 146-155

 

Eleftheriou K., Evelpidou N., Poulos S., Andris P., Vassilopoulos A., 2008. An investigation of the evolution of the beach zone of the St. Georgios bay (Naxos island, Aegean Sea), in relation to its morphological and hydrodynamical characteristics. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece, XLII/II, 14-22.

 

Tsanakas k., Poulos S.E. and Monioudi I, 2017.  Sea level rise impact on the beach zone of Katerini region, NW Aegean Sea. 15th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology, Rhodes, Greece, 31 August- 2 September 2017, 5p. CEST2017_01282

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors review has effectively improved the article. Well done!
My only doubt concerns the error inserted in Table 2. How can you estimate it?
Moreover I can suggest another case study to mention in the paper: Margherita di Savoia where the harbour construction in 1950 triggered a severe erosion still going on. Details can be found in
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8070531
https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051466

 

Author Response

We added the two references suggested by Reviewer #1 in the text (lines 57-58).

 

We also added a reference to the paper we referred to while dealing with the estimation of the digitalization error (line 143, footnote of Table 2).

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have reply to the most of the cooments. The only deficiency still remains the use of the term cell, which is a hydrodyanomic term and not a morphological one.

Actually Cappucii et al (2020) they have characterised the same coastal sector as  "a littoral cell system" and not just as one "cell"

For this reason I have gone through the text and I have changed where it is needed the term cell with the term sector, trying to be consistent throughout the  text.

If the authors agree (accept) these changes, the paper could be accepted after this minor revision.

Cappucci, S.; Bertoni, D.; Cipriani, L.E.; Boninsegni, G.; Sarti, G. Assessment of the 561 anthropogenic sediment budget of a littoral cell system (Northern Tuscany, Italy). Water 2020, 562 12, 3240. DOI: 10.3390/w12113240

Author Response

We didn't find the modified version of the manuscript Reviewer #3 is referring to. We could not modify the text accordingly.

We've been informed to proceed regardless.