Monitoring Coastal Evolution and Geomorphological Processes Using Time-Series Remote Sensing and Geospatial Analysis: Application Between Cape Serrat and Kef Abbed, Northern Tunisia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been revised following my suggestions. I suggest it can be accepted after minor revision.
Minor comment:
(1) On-site coastline verification is also a step of coastline extraction, so add some description in 2.3.1.1
(2) Line 361: the title “4 discussion” should be “5 discussion”, and revise the following titles.
(3) Please check the whole text carefully to avoid writing errors, such as “3.3 Coastal dune and vegetaion systems”, vegetaion is “vegetation” ?
Author Response
comment :On-site coastline verification is also a step of coastline extraction, so add some description in 2.3.1.1
reponse :We added this explanation to the paragraph 2.3.1.1 : The verification of coastline positions is conducted by comparing the extracted coastlines with high-resolution imagery from Google Earth® when available, as well as with ground truth data collected in 2019. Incoherent features were manually corrected.
comment : Line 361: the title “4 discussion”should be “5 discussion”, and revise the following titles.
reponse : Titles after 5. Discussion are reorgorgnised as 5.1...
comment Please check the whole text carefully to avoid writing errors, such as “3.3 Coastal dune and vegetaion systems”, vegetaion is “vegetation” ?
reponse : The title was modified (1): dune and vegetation systems”
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI acknowledge the changes that the authors have made on this revision. The paper is still pretty chaotic, it is really not clear exactly what has been done, how or why. The methods and results do not match each other. There is no effective analysis of shoreline change presented. Different rates of change are not shown. There are many things that are not followed through, for example Fig 10 shows shaded zones on the beach and white lines in the sea that are not even mentioned anywhere. Pedogenesis is mentioned as a process but this is not described anywhere. Role of dams is mentioned as a control on coastal processes but not data are presented. Overall this is still very very confused, the data are not very good and they are not presented well or in a systematic way. I am not convinced that this paper is any better than the first version. I provide some comments on the text, attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Not great, I have corrected this where I can.
Author Response
Comment The methods and results do not match each other
-Reponse : the manuscript was reconsidered to consider this comment, particularly in figure 9 where the caption is reformulated to support the figure.
Comment : Different rates of change are not shown.
-Reponse : We try to prensent only significative rate change particulary near the tomobolo and arround mouth rivers.
Fig 10 shows shaded zones on the beach and white lines in the sea that are not even mentioned anywhere.
- Reponse :The figure location and the legend are added to this figure
Comment : Pedogenesis is mentioned as a process but this is not described anywhere.-
Reponse : pedogenese process discription is added in the result Ligne 559 to 596. And the discuss result with link to distinguish sand dark color in transgressive dune (Line 682 to 684).
Comment : Role of dams is mentioned as a control on coastal processes but not data are presented. The dams affect the sand echange near the beatch
-Reponse : Dam effects were discussed in paragraph Line 708 to 713
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI note the changes that have been made by the authors. These are adequate. The paper is ok now.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo comments.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee comments file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is really not a good paper, the study itself is poorly designed using poor methods, and the paper has many things missing, such as figs 3 and 4. None of this is done well and the authors make very basic mistakes regarding coastal geomorphology and processes. The methods and datasets used are not described in any way and are insufficient to address the aims of the study. Results are not well presented and the interpretation in the discussion is also entirely without foundation in evidence. A lot of the discussion is also irrelevant to this study. Overall, this study is not done well and I have no confidence in the data at all. I make detailed comments on the pdf, please look at this document.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
English needs some more work here.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Kassouk et al. study investigates the potential of time series remote sensing data (1985-2019) and geospatial analysis techniques, specifically the Digital Shoreline Analysis System (DSAS), to analyze shoreline changes and geomorphological processes in the Cap Serrat area of Northern Tunisia. The research focuses on understanding the causes of dune migrations and highlighting various morphosedimentary processes over time. The region has undergone reforestation and the installation of three major dams, which have influenced the observed geomorphic units, including sandy coastal areas, dunes, river mouths, and tombolos.
DSAS allows for detailed analysis of shoreline changes over time, providing essential metrics such as rates of erosion and accretion, which are crucial for coastal management and planning. However, the accuracy of DSAS outputs heavily depends on the quality and resolution of the input data. Poor-quality data can lead to inaccurate results (in this case, 30 m spatial resolution is a limitation acknowledged by the authors – line 425-426).
Given the frequent changes in the coastal area, the applied method offers a convenient way to maintain and update coastline databases. Additionally, the data obtained can be used to develop forecast scenarios and illustrate the impacts of future sea-level rise.
In-situ GPS control points in critical areas would have been essential controls in this methodology.
Key findings include: high erosion rates (up to -8.31 m/year) near river mouths, exacerbated by the surrounding dams; accretion rates (up to 2.93 m/year) near the tombolo; seasonal variability with maximum erosion occurring in winter and accretion in spring.
Line 41: “Coastal areas are important for the high productivity of its ecosystem” – please consider replacing the word its with a more specific one, like land-sea (ecosystem), marine (ecosystem) – depending on the intended meaning.
Line 64: missing {Citation}
Line 96: please consider to me more specific with respect to wadies – a more comprehensive mentioning would be “dry mouth rivers (wadies)”
Figure 1 – please consider enlarging the left figure, as there is enough space to fill in.
Figure 1 caption – Line 102- please consider replacing [GoogleEarth®, 2020, modified] with [background: GoogleEarth®, 2020, modified]
Figure 2 caption – Line 123 – please consider replacing (Source: OSM® map caption) with (background: OSM® map caption) – then remove the last sentence: The background is the MapTiler Satellite map. (Lines 125-126)
Figure 3. – Missing
Figure 4. – Missing
Figure 8. – Please consider placing the dune photos on the sides of the figure
Chapter 3.3. Tambolo area – appears as tomlobo in the text and in the figures – which is correct? An explanation of the term should me added also (e.g., a sand or gravel bar connecting an island with the mainland or another island – but with specific details on the discussed tombolo).
Figure 10 caption – Line 310 – incomplete text (Adapted from ).
4.1.2. and 4.1.3. repetitive titles
Line 322 – there is no Figure 10a
The role of dams in the beach morphology change is not discussed enough.
Figure 11 – poor resolution image
Overall, the reviewed article is challenging to read due to its convoluted language, lacks controls in the methodology, and suffers from poor presentation and organization.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required. The reviewed article is challenging to read due to its convoluted language.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript used time-series remote sensing and geospatial analysis monitoring coastal evolution and geomorphological processes between Cap-Serrat and Kef Abbed in Northern Tunisia from 1985 to 2019. Although there are some useful information in the manuscript, I would suggest reject this manuscript at this stage based on the following comments:
1. “2.3.1. coastline extraction” in Methods: the method of coastline extraction is incorrect or not explained clearly, waterfront line of sea water collected from remote sensing image cannot be identified as real coastline directly for natural sandy coast, muddy coast, because that the instantaneous waterline controlled by tidal level changed with time. More information should be added such as monitoring tidal level data statistically. The comparison of waterline in different years have no meaning for coast erosion or accretion. Therefore, I strongly suggest the authors pay more attention on how to gain the coastlines from the images and monitoring tidal data.
2. No on-site investigation data verification for remote sensing interpretation data, then most of the discussions are just speculations or conceptual paraphrasing without much meaning for the readers.
3. Introduction: please add more information on the theoretical significance of the research in this article, e.g. the scientific questions, for example, what are the new achievements of this paper based on previous study.
4. Results: this part should only show the results of this study without discussion.
In 3.1, the first paragraph should be move into method, the second and third paragraphs like discussion.
5. Figue4 is missing.
6. Please add more information on how to gain the seasonal evolution of the shore area, .
7. “accretion” generally means vertical deposition process, not shoreline move seawards, please check the “accretion” in this paper. “erosion” also have vertical or horizontal direction.
8. Miswriting: delete a “show” in line28, delete “(“ in line55 and 273, delete “in” in the first line of Figure5’s title, add “as” in line275……please carefully check through the manuscript.
9. Line247,257: two “3.3”
10. Line311, title of 4.1.2 is inconsistent with the following main text content.
11. Please check Figure’s numbers, “Figure12 should be “Figure11” in line346,347, Figure11 should be Figure12 in line 356, and revise main text.
12. Figure15(b), more information should be added to prove “sea level”, or which is just a tidal water level at one time.
13. Please add reference for the second sentence of the first paragraph in Introduction.
14. Please add river name mentioned in manuscript in figure1,2 and others.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
