Remote Sensing of Geomorphodiversity Linked to Biodiversity—Part III: Traits, Processes and Remote Sensing Characteristics
, Michael E. Schaepman 4, Andrew K. Skidmore 5,6, Eusebiu Catana 7, Lutz Bannehr 8, Olaf Bastian 9, Erik Borg 10,11, Jan Bumberger 12,13,14, Peter Dietrich 13,14, Cornelia Glässer 3, Jorg M. Hacker 15,16, Rene Höfer 17, Thomas Jagdhuber 18,19, Sven Jany 20, András Jung 21, Arnon Karnieli 22, Reinhard Klenke 23, Toralf Kirsten 24,25, Uta Ködel 13, Wolfgang Kresse 26, Ulf Mallast 13, Carsten Montzka 27, Markus Möller 28, Minhaz Rahman 29, Claudia Schütze 32, Peter Selsam 13, Sina Truckenbrodt 31,34, Michael Vohland 35,36, Martin Volk 1,3, Thilo Wellmann 1,2, Steffen Zacharias 13 and add
Show full author list
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript provides a good review of how Remote Sensing may be a reliable method for monitoring geomorphic diversity at various scales, enabling for improved conservation of geodiversity and biodiversity. The work is scientifically good and deserves to be published in Remote Sensing, with minor revisions. Overall, the article is well written and organized, though I tried to point out some few minor comments and inconsistencies (see comments).
Specific Comments:
>> Constraints of RS to detect geomorphic properties
The authors compiled a list of many restrictions linked to the platforms, sensors, and methodologies employed in such study. However, the material provided in the summary is redundant and does not provide a comprehensive grasp of that aspect, as well as how it might be addressed by combining, for example, multi-sensor techniques, as noted by the authors. As a result, the reviewer suggests revising this section to analyze how these limits are related to one another and how they might be overcome.
>> Geomorphic taxonomic diversity using RS (from line 806 to 812)
Although LiDAR is a valuable data source for terrain modeling, DEM obtained by SfM are also highly effective for monitoring geomorphic features and changes in them over time since this technology provides a very high-resolution DEM in addition to spectral information at a lower cost. In addition to LiDAR, the reviewer suggests mentioning this technology.
>> All abbreviations should be explained where they are mentioned for the first time in the text. For example (just to mention a few), AI for Artificial Intelligence nn Line 238, DEM for Digital Elevation Model in Line 518.
>> The manuscript suffers from few English issues. The reviewer suggests that the manuscript should be revised in that sense.
Remarks and Typos:
>> Line 145: ecosystem [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Tukianinen et al. [23]
>> Line 278: repetition of the word InSAR
>> Line 529: Geomorphic processes and changes define and the shape the traits
>> Line 533: Thus, on the one hand
>> Line 546 and 547: Landsat 5-8 time series and in the future Landsat OLI. OLI is a sensor that has been used for Landsat-8. The continuity of this program is Landsat-9 which uses the second generation of the same sensor called OLI-2.
>> Line 564: and using 3 DEM and DSM
>> Line 585: spatial directional. What do you mean by directional?
>> Figure 10: Overall, the figure is shoddy and should redesigned. The general idea of the figure which is the link between the different traits is not clear and the reader may be confused. Also, many elements of this figure are not clear and should be adjusted. The sub-figures (b) and (g) are not mentioned in the figure’s title.
>> Line 1051: ecosystem integrity
>> Line 1061: and vegetation (Lausch et al., 2016) (Lausch et al., 2018) => the references should be formatted properly
>> Line 1079: approach to for monitoring
Author Response
Review 1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript provides a good review of how Remote Sensing may be a reliable method for monitoring geomorphic diversity at various scales, enabling for improved conservation of geodiversity and biodiversity. The work is scientifically good and deserves to be published in Remote Sensing, with minor revisions. Overall, the article is well written and organized, though I tried to point out some few minor comments and inconsistencies (see comments).
Thank you very much for your very constructive advice and comments. At the same time, I would like to thank you for seeing the special new value of the paper and supporting it with your comments.
Specific Comments:
>> Constraints of RS to detect geomorphic properties
- The authors compiled a list of many restrictions linked to the platforms, sensors, and methodologies employed in such study. However, the material provided in the summary is redundant and does not provide a comprehensive grasp of that aspect,
Answer to your comments:
The abstract and the summary were completely rewritten, concretised and duplications in the statements were tightened.
- as well as how it might be addressed by combining, for example, multi-sensor techniques, as noted by the authors.
Answer to your comments:
In this chapter, important statements have been added and duplications deleted.
- As a result, the reviewer suggests revising this section to analyze how these limits are related to one another and how they might be overcome.
Answer to your comments:
The chapter on the limits of RS to capture the five indicators of geomorphodiversity is extensively described in the paper. Likewise, numerous references to the various RS technologies and their applications are included in Tables 1 and 2.
I have made a reference to Paper II, where various RS technologies for capturing geomorphology are identified in great detail. Each individual limitation and how these limits can be limited can unfortunately not be discussed in detail in the paper. However, I have added some crucial statements in the paper.
>> Geomorphic taxonomic diversity using RS (from line 806 to 812)
Although LiDAR is a valuable data source for terrain modeling, DEM obtained by SfM are also highly effective for monitoring geomorphic features and changes in them over time since this technology provides a very high-resolution DEM in addition to spectral information at a lower cost. In addition to LiDAR, the reviewer suggests mentioning this technology.
Answer to your comments:
DEM recorded by SfM was also discussed in detail in Paper II. I know that LiDAR plays an extremely important role in monitoring geomorphology/geomorphodiversity. I have added additions to the introduction on the importance of DEM using LiDAR and the reference to Paper II.
Lausch, A., Schaepman, M.E., Skidmore, A.K., Truckenbrodt, S.C., Hacker, J.M., Baade, J., Bannehr, L., Borg, E., Bumberger, J., Dietrich, P., Gläßer, C., Haase, D., Heurich, M., Jagdhuber, T., Jany, S., Krönert, R., Möller, M., Mollenhauer, H., Montzka, C., Pause, M., Rogass, C., Salepci, N., Schmullius, C., Schrodt, F., Schütze, C., Schweitzer, C., Selsam, P., Spengler, D., Vohland, M., Volk, M., Weber, U., Wellmann, T., Werban, U., Zacharias, S., Thiel, C., 2020. Linking the Remote Sensing of Geodiversity and Traits Relevant to Biodiversity—Part II: Geomorphology, Terrain and Surfaces. Remote Sens. 12, 3690. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12223690
>> All abbreviations should be explained where they are mentioned for the first time in the text. For example (just to mention a few), AI for Artificial Intelligence nn Line 238, DEM for Digital Elevation Model in Line 518.
Answer to your comments:
All apprevations wurden explained where they are mentioned for the first time
>> The manuscript suffers from few English issues. The reviewer suggests that the manuscript should be revised in that sense.
Answer to your comments:
The paper was again revised by a native speaker for final English correction.
Remarks and Typos:
>> Line 145: ecosystem [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Tukianinen et al. [23]
Answer to your comments:
Was done
>> Line 278: repetition of the word InSAR
Answer to your comments:
Was done
>> Line 529: Geomorphic processes and changes define and the shape the traits
Answer to your comments:
Was done
>> Line 533: Thus, on the one hand
Answer to your comments:
Was done
>> Line 546 and 547: Landsat 5-8 time series and in the future Landsat OLI. OLI is a sensor that has been used for Landsat-8. The continuity of this program is Landsat-9 which uses the second generation of the same sensor called OLI-2.
Answer to your comments:
Was done
>> Line 564: and using 3 DEM and DSM
Answer to your comments:
Was done
>> Line 585: spatial directional. What do you mean by directional?
Answer to your comments:
Sorry. This was an error and has been changed to the following sentence.
“The radiometric-, spectral- spatial-, and temporal resulution of the RS sensors are crucial for successful detection and monitoring of the five features of geomorphic diversity.”
>> Figure 10:
- Overall, the figure is shoddy and should redesigned. The general idea of the figure which is the link between the different traits is not clear and the reader may be confused. Also, many elements of this figure are not clear and should be adjusted. The sub-figures (b) and (g) are not mentioned in the figure’s title.
Answer to your comments:
Overall, the illustration is half-baked and should be redesigned. The general idea of the figure, which shows the connection between the different features, is not clear and the reader might be confused. Also, many elements of this figure are not clear and should be adjusted. Sub-figures (b) and (g) are not mentioned in the title of the figure.
Figure 10 has been de-cluttered and rebuilt. Many elements have been deleted to improve readability. Figure 10 is not intended to show the connection between the different features, but just the opposite - the uniqueness and characteristics of each of the five features. To make this more understandable, I have made the caption more concrete.Furthermore the Figure 10 has been stripped down and rebuilt. Numerous elements have been deleted to improve readability.
>> Line 1051: ecosystem integrity
Answer to your comments:
Was done
>> Line 1061: and vegetation (Lausch et al., 2016) (Lausch et al., 2018) => the references should be formatted properly
Answer to your comments:
Was done
>> Line 1079: approach to for monitoring
Answer to your comments:
This error was not found. Thus, this could not be changed.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors provided a comprehensive state of art of constraints and limitations of the acquisition of geomorphology by Remote Sensing.
Paper introduces a new perspective for definition and monitoring of five characteristics of geomorphologic diversity with Remote Sensing technologies: geomorphic genesis diversity, geomorphic trait diversity, geomorphic structural diversity, geomorphic taxonomic diversity and geomorphic functional diversity. All five characteristics are discussed in details and reinforced with some examples from various RS technologies. Moreover, the paper discusses among the others, how it helps to record geomorphic traits and trait variations, as well as their changes using RS technologies. The authors outlined as many as 8 paper objectives, which are well described in a fairly extensive manuscript. The manuscript is well written and in my opinion, it could be accepted after major revisions, which are listed below:
- Both the abstract and the title are confusing to the reader. Rather, I expected more attention to review of the spectral indicators derived from RS, along with an indication of their advantages and disadvantages that can be used in studying the relationship between biodiversity and geodiversity, as well as examples for mapping/classifying /assessing geodiversity for biodiversity.
2.The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. The introduction is too long and the scientific novelty is insufficiently emphasized.
- The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited. With such a broad literature review, the geodiversity aspect, which appears in the title itself, has practically been omitted. The authors introduce new terminology regarding geomorphic diversity, although they do not consider the current geodiversity state of art. This term has been used in the literature for a long time (Panizza, 2009) or under the concept of landform diversity (Zwoliński, 2009), as well as geomorphological diversity. In the current trend of geodiversity research, RS data is usually used for mapping and assessing geomorphological component, and there are many examples of publications. Of course, for areas where direct data from geomorphological mapping and archival geomorphological maps are difficult to obtain or not available.
3.1. Another issue with the entire paper is the frequent equation of geomorphology with geodiversity. These are not equivalent terms. Geodiversity is a much broader concept and geomorphology is its element /component. The article, or rather a chapter in the monograph, concerns geomorphologic diversity, not geodiversity.
e.g.
“Geomorphology or geodiversity is the contributing, controlling, regulating and limiting factor as well as the most important control variable and control parameter in landscape processes, which is not only essential for biodiversity but also for understanding, modelling and predicting geohazards and human intensification as the foundation for a resilient geo-management?”
3.2 Besides, above conclusion is very bold, but not supported by any research or literature examples.
- In my opinion, the biggest drawback is the lack of the discussion. The authors should discuss the results and the way of their interpretation in the perspective of previous research and research objects. Having presented the problem in such a wide range, it would be the most valuable part of the presented paper.
- Comments to figures:
Fig. 2. Illustration illegible. Especially the right side. What do the colors used for the links and higlighted windows mean? There's no explanation. Perhaps a tabular representation would be more appropriate or maybe the form of flow chart?
Fig 8. Grid coordinates unreadable.
Fig. 9. 3 DEM and DSM (reference from text line 564) and (e) signature is missing in captation.
Fig. 10. Illustration illegible (legends, charts, description) and too many elements. (g) missing in captation.
Fig. 11. Illustration illegible (legends, charts, description) and too many elements.
Fig. 14. Grid coordinates unreadable.
Fig. 16. Incorrect captation, should be: (2c,d) (3 e,f) (4 g,h).
- References to check. There are some repeats.
References:
Panizza, M. The Geomorphodiversity of the Dolomites (Italy): A Key of Geoheritage Assessment. Geoheritage 1, 33–42 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-009-0003-z
Zwoliński Zb., 2009. The routine of landform geodiversity map design for the Polish Carpathian Mts. W: E. Rojan, A. Łajczak (red.), Geoecology of the Euroasiatic Alpids. Landform Analysis 11: 79–87.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors provided a comprehensive state of art of constraints and limitations of the acquisition of geomorphology by Remote Sensing.
Paper introduces a new perspective for definition and monitoring of five characteristics of geomorphologic diversity with Remote Sensing technologies: geomorphic genesis diversity, geomorphic trait diversity, geomorphic structural diversity, geomorphic taxonomic diversity and geomorphic functional diversity. All five characteristics are discussed in details and reinforced with some examples from various RS technologies. Moreover, the paper discusses among the others, how it helps to record geomorphic traits and trait variations, as well as their changes using RS technologies. The authors outlined as many as 8 paper objectives, which are well described in a fairly extensive manuscript. The manuscript is well written and in my opinion, it could be accepted after major revisions, which are listed below:
I would like to thank you very much for your constructive comments for this paper. I have now incorporated many things and specifically explained my responses to your comments.
1.
- Both the abstract and the title are confusing to the reader.
Answer to your comments:
The abstract has been completely revised and streamlined. A new title is proposed which is more appropriate to the content and aims of the paper.
- Rather, I expected more attention to review of the spectral indicators derived from RS, along with an indication of their advantages and disadvantages that can be used in studying the relationship between biodiversity and geodiversity, as well as examples for mapping/classifying /assessing geodiversity for biodiversity.
Answer to your comments:
Rather, I would have expected more attention to be given to the review of RS-derived spectral indicators, along with an indication of their advantages and disadvantages that can be used in examining the relationship between biodiversity and geodiversity, as well as examples of mapping/classifying/assessing geodiversity in terms of biodiversity. I have renamed the title of the paper to the recording of geomorphodiversity using RS. This title is in line with the content and objectives of the paper. Thus, the paper no longer focuses on the relationship between biodiversity and geodiversity. This relationship and the connection will be the content of a later paper. The advantages and disadvantages of specific RS technologies are not discussed in detail in the paper, as Paper II will give a detailed overview of RS technologies for the assessment of geomorphic traits. An overview with pros/cons of each RS technology can be found in Table 1.
Lausch, A., et al., 2020. Linking the Remote Sensing of Geodiversity and Traits Relevant to Biodiversity—Part II: Geomorphology, Terrain and Surfaces. Remote Sens. 12, 3690. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12223690
A further specification/advantages and disadvantages of individual classification approaches, spectral indices, machine learning methods, pattern recognition methods, pixel or GEOBIO approaches, etc. cannot be provided in this overview paper, as the paper is already 50 pages long. However, we think that this paper is an excellent basis for numerous other papers where exactly this question should be presented in a comparative way.
- The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. The introduction is too long and the scientific novelty is insufficiently emphasized.
Answer to your comments:
The introduction has been revised with regard to your comment and the added value of this approach has been better highlighted.
3.
- The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited. With such a broad literature review, the geodiversity aspect, which appears in the title itself, has practically been omitted.
Answer to your comments:
I have had to take several days to integrate Chapter 9 - Discussion of existing indicators and existing assessment approaches to geomorphodiversity. I think the paper has gained value from this additional chapter.
- The authors introduce new terminology regarding geomorphic diversity, although they do not consider the current geodiversity state of art. This term has been used in the literature for a long time (Panizza, 2009) or under the concept of landform diversity (Zwoliński, 2009), as well as geomorphological diversity.
Answer to your comments:
Please see my last answer. Existing assessment approaches and the state of the art were named and discussed in the introduction and chapter 9.
- In the current trend of geodiversity research, RS data is usually used for mapping and assessing geomorphological component, and there are many examples of publications. Of course, for areas where direct data from geomorphological mapping and archival geomorphological maps are difficult to obtain or not available.
Answer to your comments:
The title has been changed to focus on monitoring geomorphodiversity. The term "geodiversity" has been removed from the title. Likewise, a new chapter 9 has been introduced.
3.1.
- Another issue with the entire paper is the frequent equation of geomorphology with geodiversity. These are not equivalent terms. Geodiversity is a much broader concept and geomorphology is its element /component.
Answer to your comments:
Thank you very much for this very good reference. The entire paper was revised with regard to the equation of geomorphology and geodiversity. The entire paper now refers exclusively to the recording of geomorphodiversity.
- The article, or rather a chapter in the monograph, concerns geomorphologic diversity, not geodiversity.
Answer to your comments:
Please see the answers to this question above.
- Besides, above conclusion is very bold, but not supported by any research or literature examples.
Answer to your comments:
The Conclusion has been completely revised. As this paper is a completely new approach, there are no references to support specific statements.
4.
- In my opinion, the biggest drawback is the lack of the discussion. The authors should discuss the results and the way of their interpretation in the perspective of previous research and research objects. Having presented the problem in such a wide range, it would be the most valuable part of the presented paper.
Answer to your comments:
A completely new chapter 9 has been included in the paper to discuss existing research on indicators and evaluation approaches. Unfortunately, this topic cannot be discussed more extensively as it is already beyond the scope of this paper.
5.Comments to figures:
Fig. 2. Illustration illegible. Especially the right side. What do the colors used for the links and higlighted windows mean? There's no explanation. Perhaps a tabular representation would be more appropriate or maybe the form of flow chart?
Answer to your comments:
Further explanations of Fig. 2 have been added in the introduction and in the Fig. 2 caption. A tabular representation of a Sankey plot does not make sense, as it is a Web of Science literature analysis consisting of about 5000 papers), From line 199: "To identify major research themes that are prevailing in the literature in 'geomorphology and remote sensing', we analysed the research published in the Web of Science using the respective terms with Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA)".
Fig 8. Grid coordinates unreadable.
Answer to your comments:
The grid coordinates have been removed as they are not readable.
Fig. 9. 3 DEM and DSM (reference from text line 564) and (e) signature is missing in captation.
Answer to your comments:
This error has been corrected
Fig. 10. Illustration illegible (legends, charts, description) and too many elements. (g) missing in captation.
Answer to your comments:
I understand that the character is very complex and therefore difficult to read. I have de-framed it somewhat to improve readability and comprehension. However, I would like to leave this figure in this form in the paper, as it compactly represents the properties of the 5 characteristics of geomorphology. The description for (g) has been added.
Fig. 11. Illustration illegible (legends, charts, description) and too many elements.
Answer to your comments:
I also understand that Figure 11 is very complex. Again, parts have been deleted and others enlarged to make it easier to read and understand. Some of the legends and labels have been deleted because some of them are pictorgrams. I have tried to improve the description, readability and references/links in the caption.
Fig. 14. Grid coordinates unreadable.
Answer to your comments:
The coordinates in the figure have been deleted because they are not legible.
Fig. 16. Incorrect captation, should be: (2c,d) (3 e,f) (4 g,h).
Answer to your comments:
The incorrect captations have been changed.
6.References to check. There are some repeats.
Repetitions in the reference list have been removed. Likewise, the reference list was checked again for errors.
References:
Panizza, M. The Geomorphodiversity of the Dolomites (Italy): A Key of Geoheritage Assessment. Geoheritage 1, 33–42 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-009-0003-z
Zwoliński Zb., 2009. The routine of landform geodiversity map design for the Polish Carpathian Mts. W: E. Rojan, A. Łajczak (red.), Geoecology of the Euroasiatic Alpids. Landform Analysis 11: 79–87.
Answer to your comments:
Thank you for the very good references to existing approaches to monitoring geomorphodiversity. I have integrated these two references as well as other references in the introduction and in the new chapter 9.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The presented topic is interesting and fits into the scope of the journal. The authors provided a comprehensive state of art of constraints and limitations of the acquisition of geomorphodiversity by Remote Sensing.
The authors of the publication took into account the comments and suggestions from the previous review. In my opinion, the amendments improve the value of the publication. The revised version of the manuscript as well as the included new explanations and discussion will help the reader to better understand the work.
In my opinion, after minor style and spell check of English language, the article is ready to print in Remote Sensing Journal.
e.g.
“Therefore, RS technologies and monitoring approaches are a crucial interdisciplinary and monitoring method linking method for monitoring the status, changes and hazards of the geomorphology on all spatio-temporal scales of geomophodiversity”.
