Decoding Chambal River Shoreline Transformations: A Comprehensive Analysis Using Remote Sensing, GIS, and DSAS
, Gowhar Meraj 1,2, Pankaj Kumar 3, Suraj Kumar Singh 1,*, Shruti Kanga 4, Brian Alan Johnson 3, Deepak Kumar Prajapat 1, Jatan Debnath 5 and Dhrubajyoti Sahariah 5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Abstract is vague - rewrite
2. Rewrite the conclusion as per the work carried out by the author
3. What is the limitations in your study?
4. How the impacts of various losses is considered?
5. How many parameters were considered?
6. Highlight the innovativeness and novelty in the introduction section
7. Why you have selected Chambal river?
8. Which governing equation is used in DSAS v5.1
9. Length of paper is too short. Author are informed to expand the paper
10. Introduction section need to be strengthen.
Author Response
Dear Worthy Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript, “Decoding Chambal River Shoreline Transformations: A Comprehensive Analysis Using Remote Sensing, GIS, and DSAS v5.1.” We appreciate your valuable feedback and suggestions, which have helped us improve the quality of our work. In this response, we have addressed your comments point-by-point and explained the revisions we have made to the manuscript. We hope that the revised manuscript meets your expectations and is now suitable for publication in the Journal Water.
Once again, we would like to express our gratitude for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.
Best regards,
Suraj Kumar Singh
Point by Point Responses
- Abstract is vague – rewrite
The abstract of the manuscript has been revised. By adding of findings of the study and quantitative results
- Rewrite the conclusion as per the work carried out by the author
The conclusion of the manuscript has been revised.
What is the limitations in your study?
The limitations of the study have been added to the manuscript.
- How the impacts of various losses is considered?
The National Green Tribunal identified these sand mining sites. In this study, erosion and accretion are calculated at the illegal sand mining sites. For the assessment of erosion and accretion geoinformatics approach is used.
- How many parameters were considered?
Three parameters are considered in this study which are shoreline change envelope, Net shoreline moment and Endpoint rate.
- Highlight the innovativeness and novelty in the introduction section.
The DSAS tool is used for naturally occurring coastal or river bank erosion and accretion. But this study shows that DSAS can also be used to analyze the impact of illegal sand mining or man-made effects on river bank lines.
- Why you have selected Chambal river?
The National Chambal Sanctuary, also known as the Chambal River Sanctuary, is a protected area in India in Rajasthan. It has a rich biodiversity, conservation efforts, tourism opportunities, and scientific research. But in the last few decades, India's National Green Tribunal (NGT) has reported extensive sand mining on the Chambal River. The Chambal River is one of the most heavily mined rivers in India.
- Which governing equation is used in DSAS v5.1
The governing equation used in DSAS v5.1 for shoreline change analysis is the linear regression equation. This equation is used to fit a straight line through the time-series of shoreline positions, and the slope of the line is taken as the rate of shoreline change. The linear regression equation is expressed as y = mx + b, where y is the shoreline position, x is the time, m is the slope or rate of shoreline change, and b is the y-intercept. The slope (m) is calculated using the least squares method, which minimizes the sum of the squared residuals between the observed and predicted shoreline positions.
- Length of paper is too short. Author are informed to expand the paper
As per your suggestion and Length of the paper is extended
- Introduction section need to be strengthen.
As per your suggestion Introduction section has been revised.
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Line 214: delete were between we and considered
2. Line 243: ableto replaced by able to
3. Line 303: Distance change measurement of shoreline replaced by shoreline change
4. Line 303: changeenvelope replaced by change envelope
5. Language is moderate and need to be checked before publication
Author Response
Dear Worthy Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript, “Decoding Chambal River Shoreline Transformations: A Comprehensive Analysis Using Remote Sensing, GIS, and DSAS” We appreciate your valuable feedback and suggestions, which have helped us improve the quality of our work. In this response, we have addressed your comments point-by-point and explained the revisions we have made to the manuscript. We hope that the revised manuscript meets your expectations and is now suitable for publication in the Journal Water.
Once again, we would like to express our gratitude for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.
Best regards,
Suraj Kumar Singh
Point-by-Point Responses
In the title, v5.1 not necessary and can be added to the text.
As per your suggestion, "v5.1" is removed from the manuscript title.
Abstract includes more theory it should focus on the findings of the study and quantitative results should be added.
The abstract of the manuscript has been revised as per your suggestions.
Keywords, are too many (8), the most important 5 could be selected.
corrected in the manuscript.
Caption of figures (1-10) is too long. It can be shortened and explained in the text.
corrected in the manuscript.
Table 1 is not presented in the text, it should be explained before it appears in the text.
corrected in the manuscript.
Equations should take numbers 1, 2 and 3.
corrected in the manuscript.
Figure 5 resolution is low, and text is not clear. Higher resolution figure is necessary.
High-resolution Figure 5 is corrected in the manuscript.
More details about transects should be added (e.g. number of transects, distances between them, baseline ………. etc.
Thank you for your suggestion. The number of transects and spacing between the transects of each of the three mining places are added in Tables 2 and 3 in the manuscript.
Conclusion includes more theory it should focus on the findings of the study and quantitative results should be added.
The conclusion of the manuscript has been improved by adding more quantitative results.
The novelty of the paper is not clear. As mentioned in the introduction, all the used methods have been applied before in different areas. Novelty should be highlighted in the abstract and conclusion.
The DSAS tool is used for naturally occurring coastal or river bank erosion and accretion. But this study shows that DSAS can also be used to analyses the impact of illegal sand mining or man-made effects on river bank lines. The novelty of the paper is added in the introduction part after the literature review.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors submitted an interesting manuscript dealing with illegal sand mining on Chambel river and the effect of this activity on the dynamics of river shoreline. However, the data used in the study and their date of acquisition are not suitable in order to provide reliable results. While the methodology applied is appropriate, i would recommend applying it on high resolution data such as images acquired by Sentinel-2 with 10 m of spatial resolution; and also use multiple images. Because 10 years differences (1990, 2000, 2010, 2020) is so high.
Author Response
Dear Worthy Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript, “Decoding Chambal River Shoreline Transformations: A Comprehensive Analysis Using Remote Sensing, GIS, and DSAS v5.1.” We appreciate your valuable feedback and suggestions, which have helped us improve the quality of our work. In this response, we have addressed your comments point-by-point and explained the revisions we have made to the manuscript. We hope that the revised manuscript meets your expectations and is now suitable for publication in the Journal Water.
Once again, we would like to express our gratitude for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.
Best regards,
Suraj Kumar Singh
The authors submitted an interesting manuscript dealing with illegal sand mining on Chambel river and the effect of this activity on the dynamics of river shoreline. However, the data used in the study and their date of acquisition are not suitable in order to provide reliable results. While the methodology applied is appropriate, i would recommend applying it on high resolution data such as images acquired by Sentinel-2 with 10 m of spatial resolution; and also use multiple images. Because 10 years differences (1990, 2000, 2010, 2020) is so high.
We appreciate you taking an interest in the manuscripts.
At the sites where sand is being illegally mined, erosion and accretion are calculated. These particular locations (illegal sand mining sites) have been subjected to extensive sand mining for a very long time. Erosion and accretion are calculated at these illegal sand mining sites in order to determine the long-term impact of sand mining on river shorelines. As per your recommendation, Sentinel-2A/MSI imagery was used from 2010 to 2020. Details about this imagery are listed in Table 1.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed my concerns
Reviewer 3 Report
No further comments
Minor editing of English language required
