Quantitative Morphometric 3D Terrain Analysis of Japan Using Scripts of GMT and R

No

Reviewer’s Comments

Author’s actions

1

Dear Authors,

I would like to congratulate you on the content of your paper.

It is well structured, well organized, and well developed, showing original ideas, and being accepted after minor revision.

Many thanks for the encouraging review and support of our manuscript. We highly appreciate your comments and suggestions. The manuscript is improved using your PDF report with 74 in-text comments and corrections. Changes in the paper are marked up yellow.

2

In my opinion, however, a conceptual error should be pointed out. You often write about geomorphology, quantitative geomorphological analysis, or landforms. Otherwise, the elements treated in the contribution are simple topographical attributes (morphological features such as slope, exposure, slope, elevation) that you confuse with geomorphological features (landform). What you are conducting is therefore a morphometric and not a geomorphometric analysis (that is, the interpretative geomorphological analysis of the topographical attributes is missing). Without detracting from the fact that the development of geomorphological processes and landforms is strongly controlled by the topography of an area. For this reason, I suggest changing the title of the article and replacing the words geomorphology, geomorphometry and morphology in the text with the term’s morphology, morphometry, and morphological features respectively.

More suggestions are contained in the attached file.

Ok, we modified the Title of the paper as suggested to “Quantitative Morphometric 3D Terrain Analysis of Japan Using Scripts of GMT and R”. Relevant necessary changes are also made in the main text: changed terminology of the geomorphological descriptions to the topographic attributes and morphological features related to morphology and morphometry. The updates are coloured in the main text.

Yes

Can be improved

Must be improved

Not applicable

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

(x)

( )

( )

( )

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

(x)

( )

( )

( )

Is the research design appropriate?

(x)

( )

( )

( )

Are the methods adequately described?

(x)

( )

( )

( )

Are the results clearly presented?

(x)

( )

( )

( )

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

(x)

( )

( )

( )

No

Reviewer’s Comments

Author’s actions

1

Moderate English changes required

The manuscript is proofread throughout. We have corrected all occasional typesetting misprints and minor grammar mistakes (spelling, punctuation) where necessary. Grammar errors are corrected and misprints are checked everywhere in the text.

2

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? – Can be improved.

The Introduction section is updated with many rewordings made. The subsection 1.1. Background and Motivation is extended with added paragraphs regarding the cartographic projections. Some minor changes are also made in the text.

3

Are all the cited references relevant to the research? – Must be improved.

The references are corrected: added two new ones and deleted unnecessary ones, as suggested. We decreased the total number of references to 80, as suggested.

4

Is the research design appropriate? – Can be improved.

The manuscript is partially restructured as follows:

Section 2. Materials and Methods is now subdivided into the 2.1. Study region; 2.2. Datasets preprocessing and 2.3. Methods. The latter has 3 smaller units: 2.3.1. 3D modelling by GMT scripts; 2.3.2. Mapping the prefectures of Japan; 2.3.3. Mapping morphological features.

Some subsections are renames as follows: 2.1. Study region; 2.2. Datasets preprocessing; 2.3.3. Mapping morphological features. Moreover, the Discussion and Conclusion sections are updated with some parts of the text moved and reworded.

5

Are the methods adequately described? – Can be improved.

The Methodology is improved and partially restructured. Included minor rewordings and corrections where required. The scripts are added into Supplementary materials along with the submission.

6

Are the results clearly presented? – Can be improved.

The results section is updated with added paragraphs, some rewording and comments on spatial variations in the terrain of the Japanese Alps (“Marked physiographic variations in the Japanese Alps control the type and distribution of morphometric parameters in the following two regards. First, the heights changes from Hokkaido, Kyushu and Honshu Islads with the highest elevation points in the central part of the Honshu (Mt. Fuji). Therefore, the variation of topographic ruggedness and slope steepness is primarily controlled by the geographic location with the largest difference between the extreme highest and lowest points in Central Alps. Second, the largest recorded in Japan Tohoku earthquake recorded ca. 371 km NE of Tokyo in 2011 (Miyagi prefecture, see map in Figure 4) affected the topography of the country and increased slope instability and risks of landslides”).

7

Are the conclusions supported by the results? – Can be improved.

The Conclusion section is shortened, as suggested with some parts of the text moved to the Discussion. Several sentences in Discussion and Conclusion are updated; some rewordings are made where required. The Discussion section now presents more comments regarding the presented results, while the Conclusion summarizes the study in a more concise way.

8

The authors presented two related scripting methods of cartographic data processing and visualization which provide 2D and 3D mapping of Japan with different algorithm complexity.

The software presented here in interesting, however, the presentation and structure of the manuscript can be improved. Please see below my comments.

Thank you for review and reading of our paper. We highly appreciate all the comments and suggestions. The manuscript is updated accordingly with changes marked up in yellow in the new version of the paper.

9

Mapping lands undergoes distortion in angle, area, shape, etc., depending on the type of map projection (WGS84, Lambert, etc.). One of the key components in GIS software is the map projection. This needs to be briefly mentioned in Introduction, perhaps in the first paragraph or in Section 1.1. Please also add the following review article that discusses these distortions in detail:

https://doi.org/10.1515/jag-2015-0033

Added the following 3 paragraphs in the section 1.1. Background and Motivation with inserted citation: “One of the key components in GIS software and cartographic data processing is the map projection. Mapping lands undergoes distortion in angle, area and shape, depending on the type of map projection, such as conic, azimuthal, cylindrical and miscellaneous types [31]. As a result, minor distortions arise when transforming the coordinates into various types of projections. As a result, various projections can be better adjusted to mapping specific study area de on map depending on their locations and spatial extent.

For instance, Albers conic equal-area is mostly used to plot areas with large longitudinal extent, e.g., Canada and USA. The polyconic projections have true scales on the parallels represented as non-concentric circular arcs. This makes this projection class neither equal-area, nor conformal with the least distortion on the parallels having their centers along a central meridian. Similar to Albers, the Lambert conic conformal projection, is suitable for regions with W-E extent with the distortion-free two standard parallels. The Equidistant conic projection presents a balance between the conformal and equal-area projections with the distortion minimized over the region of interest and true scale along all the meridians and standard parallels.

Large regions with global extent are better mapped using Lambert azimuthal equal-area or stereographic equal angle projections, while northern regions, such as Scandinavian areas can be effectively plotted using Polar stereographic projection where map boundaries are represented by lines of constant longitude and latitude. In this study, we used the cylindrical Mercator projection which is conformal in type.”

10

Lines 106, 120, etc. Please define all the abbreviations the first time they appear. Please also include them in the acronym table at the end of manuscript.

Corrected for all the cases. New entries are coloured blue in the List of Abbreviations in the end of paper.

11

Please consider moving all the scripts in Appendix to the Supplementary materials instead. The supplementary materials will also be published along with the paper but it is not in the same pdf. Line 133, etc. Please refer to Supplementary Materials instead of saying Appendix.

The Supplementary materials are added in the submission. The Appendix is remained additionally for the repeatability of the scripts and a technical reference for the reader. In this way they can be accessible and visually checked in similar works.

12

Line 188. SRTM resolution is 30 m not 90 m. Please check and correct.

Corrected: “...to its acceptable resolution (30m x 30m)”.

13

Section Materials and Methods should be restructured as follows (see the MDPI template):

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Study region

2.2 Datasets and preprocessing

2.3 Methods: 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, etc (list your current subsections 3.2,3.3,3.4,etc here)

Corrected. Now the modified structure is as follows:

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study region

2.2. Datasets preprocessing

2.3. Methods

2.3.1. 3D modelling by GMT scripts

2.3.2. Mapping the prefectures of Japan

2.3.3. Mapping morphological features

3. Results

Some subsections are renames to the following: 2.1. Study region; 2.2. Datasets preprocessing; 2.3.3. Mapping morphological features

14

Line 219. Figures should be referred to in numeric order. Figure 1,2,3,4,… as they appear in the manuscript.

Corrected: this sentence is changed to the “ETOPO1 and ETOPO2 are visualised and compared in 3D perspective plots”. The references to Figures are checked in the first appearance.

15

Figure 2. Caption. What are (a), (b), and (c)? I do not understand this caption. Please be clearer.

Corrected: Caption of Figure 2 is changed to (left) and (right) with regard to the 2 panels of the print screen of the program menu.

16

Figure 5. Please enlarge the texts and numbers with respect to the figure.

Generally, please enlarge the font size of text and numbers in other figures if possible.

Corrected: font of the texts is increased in the annotations in Figure 5. Added notations (a) and (b) for each subplot. Other figures are checked.

17

Line 395. I think your software is also useful for visualizing water surface dynamics, and for flood and drought applications. Right? If that’s the case, you can add the following recent article that is done through GEE but can be integrated to your GIS software for visualization?

https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14102475

The suggested citation is added in a changed phrase: "and visualising water surface dynamics in context of flood and drought applications [74]".

18

Line 423. What do you mean by “and soon”? Do you mean “and others”?

Line 440. Grammar issue. “it requires”

– Yes, corrected (“and others”).

– Corrected (“it requires”).

19

Some of the texts in the Conclusions can be moved to the Discussion section. The limitations of the study should also be mentioned in the Discussion. What additional tools can authors add to their software? Please mention future work also at the end of the discussion section. Usually, the discussion is larger than the conclusions in number of words (at least twice).

We moved two paragraphs from the Conclusion section to the Discussion: the one starting with “Graphics and maps, done well, can provide an eye-catching and detailed information..” and “Cartographic data visualization,”. Also some more sentences are modified and added in the Discussion section (coloured yellow). Now the ratio is more balanced (Discussion: 823 words, Conclusion: 416).

20

You have 121 references that is a lot for a research article. Please consider bringing them down to about 80 or lower (for example try to only keep the recent ones after 2000).

Corrected: we decreased the number of References to 80 with only essential entries remaining in the Bibliography.

Also, we only used references after year 2000.

Yes

Can be improved

Must be improved

Not applicable

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

( )

(x)

( )

( )

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

( )

( )

(x)

( )

Is the research design appropriate?

( )

(x)

( )

( )

Are the methods adequately described?

( )

(x)

( )

( )

Are the results clearly presented?

( )

(x)

( )

( )

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

( )

(x)

( )

( )

No

Reviewer’s Comments

Author’s actions

1

Are the results clearly presented? – Can be improved.

Figures 5 and 11 are replotted with increased font of the text. The legend in Figure 11 is slightly modified for a more compact view and better presentation.

2

Are the conclusions supported by the results? – Can be improved.

The Conclusions are updated with made corrections where required and added 3 more sentences.

3

I would like to thank the authors for addressing my comments. There are some grammar issues that need to be fixed before publication.

Many thanks for your support and endorsement of our paper. We have updated the manuscript, corrected some remaining misprints and occasional grammar issues.

4

Line 12. Please remove "which is"

Corrected (in “… cartography determined with the use of scripts for data processing”).

5

Lines 18-19. Please remove the last sentence from the abstract.

Done.

6

Line 33. Grammar issue. "activate" not "activates"?

Corrected, now “cartographic visualization and interpretation of the topographic features <...> activate evaluation of spatial heterogeneity”.

7

Line 112. Please replace "As a result," with "Therefore,"

Corrected, now: “Therefore, various projections can be better adjusted to mapping <...>”

8

Lines 492, 503, 522. Grammar issue. "We have shown" or "We showed" but not "We shown"

Corrected in all the three cases and checked throughout.

9

Line 507. "...various tasks, such as..." Also another grammar issue in line 508, so please remove "are all were made using different packages"

Corrected, now: “variety of packages in R to fit in various tasks, such as: geomorphometry, <...>”.

Corrected: now the phrase ends as follows: “<...> spatial analysis, data capture and data conversion”.

10

Line 528. Please remove "should be"

Corrected, now: “<...> recommended for mapping purposes”.

11

Figures 5 and 11. please enlarge the font size of the text and numbers.

Text font is increased in both figures (Figure 5 and 11). Figure 11 is replotted with legend made more compacted and fonts increased.

12

Please carefully proofread the manuscript as there may be more grammar issues.

The manuscript is proofread throughout and the grammar issues are checked. Some small minor corrections are colored yellow.

Yes

Can be improved

Must be improved

Not applicable

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

(x)

( )

( )

( )

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

(x)

( )

( )

( )

Is the research design appropriate?

(x)

( )

( )

( )

Are the methods adequately described?

(x)

( )

( )

( )

Are the results clearly presented?

( )

(x)

( )

( )

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

( )

(x)

( )

( )