Cascading Landslide: Kinematic and Finite Element Method Analysis through Remote Sensing Techniques

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript represents a case study of a cascading landslide based on InSAR, pixel offset tracking and finite element method. I think there is a great need for the authors to restructure the manuscript and to emphasize the innovative or contributions for remote sensing. In addition, some details about the remote sensing techniques need to be added. And, there are some repetitions and spelling problems in the manuscript.

1. For the term “finite element method”, I suggest using the full name in the abstract as well as in the first appearance of the manuscript。

2. – Introduction. The remote sensing is a journal for aspects of the remote sensing process, the current introduction has too much geoscience and lacks review on remote sensing. I think a part of the content of cascading landslides should be put into the Methodology section. Most importantly, the authors should articulate the innovation or the contribution of the manuscript, pointing out the key technical issues addressed in this study, e.g., whether it is a contribution to remote sensing technology itself, or the use of remote sensing to discover and solve a more important geoscientific problem, rather than merely describing the content of the current work.

3. -line 25. The authors mention the use of UAVs in the abstract, but t there are too little details in the text about the UAV data, e.g., photo overlap rate, ground sampling distance.

4. -line 38. The “sub-se-quent” should be revised. Similar situations include “de-bris” in line 60, line 66.

5. -lines 96-100. Duplicate content.

6. -lines 112-172. This part of the text should have a new STUDY AREA section.

7. -Figure 1. The representation of subfigure A is currently unclear, and it is recommended that slope, slope direction, or elevation information should be added. It is also recommended that the location of subfigures B-G be labeled on subfigures A and that the landslide boundary or extent be clarified.

8. -Figure 2. The “light blue” is not visible.

9. -Figure 3. In the scale bar, it is suggested that "2,5" be changed to "2.5".

10. -Figure 5. In the case of "landslide anatomy", the diagram forms a closed loop, so please explain or modify the logic.

11.-lines 198, 214, 266 and 299. Incorrect serial numbering of chapters.

12. -lines 230-232. The authors need to clarify how the method differs from traditional PS or SBAS methods and why this method was chosen.

13. -lines 235-237. The baseline connection diagrams of the InSAR data should be given to make it easier for the reader to understand.

14. -line 274. Is the word “ware” a spelling mistake?

15. Please clarify the ground sampling distance of the images used by the POT.

16. -Results. It is recommended that the section of Results be subdivided into 3 subsections based on the subsection structure of the Methodology section.

17. -Figure 6. It is proposed to change the position of the numbers in the scale bar, and add elevation values to the contour lines.

18. -lines 370-371. The symbols in Equations 1-3 need to be interpreted. And please confirm if there is any error in equation 2?

19. -Figure 7. It is recommended that the arrow style be changed; the current triangular arrow in the figure does not show the direction clearly. In addition, it is suggested that the authors add a couple of Google image maps to show the details of the landslide displacements corresponding to the POT results.

20. -line 393. The authors need to clarify what are the ground features corresponding to the PS points identified using the CPT algorithm, a rock or a house? It is recommended that the authors show several photos of the corresponding ground feature points and explain if there is any difference between this PS point and the PS point in PS-InSAR?

21. -Figure 8. It is recommended that the maximum and minimal value of the legend in the figure be increased; the current ±1cm is too far from the displacement curve in Figure 9.

22. -Discussion. It is recommended that the authors further analyze the obstacles encountered in the use of remote sensing technology and ways to address them. For example, POT may not be able to recognize the corresponding points due to the large gap between the two phases of images, such as rockfall or collapse. Another example is why the displacement obtained by InSAR is so different from that obtained by POT. As a remote sensing journal, I think readers are more interested in the details of remote sensing data processing.

Author Response

In the attached file are reported the answers to Reviewer 1

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A thorough proofreading, focusing on sentence structure and grammatical precision, would enhance the clarity and readability of the manuscript.

Author Response

In the attached file are reported the answers to Reviewer 2

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found it interesting the manuscript "Manuscript ID remotesensing-3175512" submitted entitled "Cascading landslide: kinematic and FEM analysis through remote sensing techniques" has been submitted to Remote Sensing. The authors investigate a multidisciplinary approach, combining conventional techniques and advanced technologies, to understand the complexities of the Morino-Rendinara landslide. Field activities, UAV image acquisition, SAR interferometry based on SENTINEL-1 images and pixel offset analysis based on high-resolution Google Earth images, offer insights into the geological and hydrogeological setting of the unstable slope, landslide geometry, mechanism and kinematics. To supplement the analysis a specific FEM slope stability analysis is used to reconstruct the deep geometry of the system emphasizing the modulation action of groundwater flow to the slope stability. Language editing on the paper is highly recommended. However, there are still major deficiencies, and it is recommended to be accepted after modification:

1.      While the abstract is well-structured, a few elements could enhance its completeness and clarity:

·        The Abstract is very generic, it doesn't explain the experimental results very clearly, I think it would be better if the experimental results are explained.

·        Indicating the specific time period during which the data was collected (e.g., "from January 2020 to December 2023") would enhance clarity.

·        Including specific quantitative findings would provide a clearer picture of the results. For example, "Findings show the landslide activity involves the movement of approximately averaging X mm/year and affecting an area of X square kilometers."

·        The abstract mainly describes the methods and approaches but does not clearly state the objective of the study or the main results. It would be beneficial to briefly mention the key findings or the significance of the results in terms of understanding the landslide dynamics.

2.      The introduction is thorough and provides detailed background on the Morino-Rendinara cascading landslide, its significance, and the methodologies used in this study. However, there are still a few areas that could be enhanced to ensure completeness and clarity:

·        There are instances of repetition, particularly regarding the goals of the study and the description of the Morino-Rendinara landslide. Streamlining these sections could make the introduction more concise.

·        All the points in Figure 1 should be mentioned in Figure 2, their exact location is not clear in the manuscript.

·        Briefly mention the expected outcomes or implications of the study. How will the results contribute to seismic risk assessment and mitigation strategies? What practical applications might emerge from this research?

3.      According to the results obtained, the Discussion section is very precise and can be written more effectively.

4.      What are the limitations of the study? What uncertainties are there in the results? Please evaluate the findings related to this in the Discussion section.

5.      Figure 9 caption is very precise and should be explained further.

6.      The conclusions should briefly restate the main objectives and methodologies to remind the reader of the study's scope and approach. Emphasize the most significant results and their implications more clearly. End with a strong concluding remark that reinforces the importance of the study and its contributions to the field.

7.      There are many grammar errors throughout the manuscript. In addition, the manuscript uses too many times of “have been”, which makes the text boring to read. Therefore, the manuscript needs to be thoroughly polished to improve the writing level.

8.      Check all references and include recent studies to ensure the literature review is up to date.

9.      A few other things that need to be worked on

·        Lines 53 to 55 (This sentence “As predisposing factor wildfires can reduce the infiltration capacity of the slope and modify significant the trend and time of saturation capacity………..”) needs to write more appropriately.

·        Lines 123 to 126 (This sentence “The March 2021 landslide affect also the Erinici 123 Mountain range, which in association with Simbruini mountains forms an overtrusting…”) needs to be written more appropriately.

·        Figure 3 caption is very precise and should be explained further.

·        The legends in Figure 4 should not be different (e.g. a and b).

·        Figure 6 caption is very precise and should be explained further.

Could you reduce the legend in Figures 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8? It will have a better graphic structure.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are many grammar errors throughout the manuscript. In addition, the manuscript uses too many times of “have been”, which makes the text boring to read. Therefore, the manuscript must be thoroughly polished to improve the writing level.

Author Response

In the attached file are reported the answers to Reviewer 3

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is highly interesting and has significant practical applications, addressing the critical issue of monitoring landslide dynamics in an Italian mountain area using various methodologies such as field activities, UAV image acquisition, SAR interferometry based on SENTINEL-1 images, and pixel offset analysis using high-resolution Google Earth images. The paper is clearly written and relatively easy to read. The use of all these methodologies to analyze a relatively small monitoring area has yielded promising predictive results, which are also valuable for future prevention efforts. However, the current work has several issues. The first is found in the introduction section, where a more comprehensive review of the state of the art regarding the different analyses is needed. Additionally, the study site is described in great detail, but this should be included in the materials and methods section instead. Furthermore, the discussion section is somewhat lacking and should be expanded, particularly by incorporating comparisons with other authors who have used similar methodologies.

In any case, you will find my line-by-line revisions at the end. Despite these issues, I reiterate that the work is interesting and, if revised, could contribute significantly to landslide monitoring. In this regard, I suggest the authors consider creating a preprint. However, I believe the article requires major revisions.

 

Line 15-17: “ Cascading landslides represent a dynamic and hazardous geological phenomenon, char-15 acterized by a sequential chain of slope failures triggered by various factors such as heavy rainfall, 16 seismic activity, or anthropogenic activities.” I would also include the lithotechnical parameters.

Line 25-28: “Field activities, UAV image acquisition, SAR interferometry based on SENTINEL-1 images and pixel offset analysis based on high-resolution GoogleEarth images, offer insights into the geological and hydrogeological setting of the unstable slope, landslide geometry, mechanism and kinematics.” This sentence is not clear

Line 49-52: “The scale and nature of the initial triggering event, as well as local geological conditions, the involved material and saturation condition, played a significant role in determining the velocity and impact of the cascading landslides. For example, heavyrainfall can saturate the soil, increasing its weight and redu….”  For this sentence, a reference should be added

Line 66: “de-bris” correct

Line 66-71: “The transport of debris and sediment cansignificantly alter the shape and characteristics of the surrounding terrain. Debris accumulation can obstruct watercourses, roads, or inhabited areas, posing a threat to infrastructure and human populations. The movement of debris can also lead to erosion of thesurrounding terrain, causing soil loss and changes in local topography. Additionally, cascading landslides can interact with existing infrastructure along their path, increasing therisk of damage and human loss..”  For this sentence, a reference should be added

Line 74-75: “Debris deposits can also block roads, railways, or watercourses, disrupting communication routes and hampering rescue and evacuation efforts [9]” This sentence is repetitive and can be removed.

Line 82-83: “In contrast, events triggered by rapid failure mechaisms such as rockfall, debris flow, or liquefaction can attain velocities exceeding 10 m/s.” For this sentence, a reference should be added

Line 108: FIGURE1. Could you include the date of the Google Earth image?

Line 110-111: FIGURE1. I find this image very interesting, but it is not clear at this size. In my opinion, you could include the image as supplementary material.

Line120-172: I believe this section should be moved to the materials and methods paragraph. The introduction should instead include an overview of the analyses that will be conducted, comparisons with the work of other authors, and a clear outline of how the study will be carried out.

Line198: The type of drone, the camera model along with its resolution and other specifications, whether the drone uses an RTK system, and the software used are all important details.

Line 278: How many images did you review and have available? Over what time period, and why were they not suitable for use?

Line 286-290: Could you explain this part more clearly? I'm not very clear on it.

Line 355: Table 2_ Unit weight (kg/m3).  Correct (kg/m³)_ Θ( ͦͦ) _ correct Θ(°)

Line 360: Have you created an inventory map? If so, please describe how it was done. If you used information from a geomorphological risk management site, you should provide the reference.

Line 385: Figure 7. Please correct the legend, and include the description and units of measurement for displacement.

Line 395: Figure 8. Both images are missing the bottom border.

Line 448: Figure 10. Both images C are missing the bottom border.

Line 494: The discussion is somewhat sparse and should be expanded. Specifically, it should not just reiterate the results but should correlate the various analytical approaches with other work in the literature. As currently written, it appears to be merely a more discursive version of the results section. Additionally, it would be beneficial to include what the next steps in the evolution of your research will be.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text is well-written and easily understandable. It could be perfect with a few improvements, but I don't believe it requires a native speaker's revision

Author Response

In the attached file are reported the answers to Reviewer 4

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the revised version is acceptable.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accepted

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the detailed answers to my suggestions and questions. All the very best for your success. This manuscript can be accepted after the improvement of language. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thanks for the detailed answers to my suggestions and questions. All the very best for your success. This manuscript can be accepted after the improvement of language.