Legacy Data: How Decades of Seabed Sampling Can Produce Robust Predictions and Versatile Products
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Excellent manuscript which provide very useful methods. Very minor editing, see attached manuscript for comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for the review and minor comments. We have addressed each of the comments, and provide details below:
Line 137. 45761 changed to 45,761.
Line 141. After additive log-ratio scale we have included the acronym "ALR" in brackets.
Line 144. "ground truth" changed to "groundtruth". This has also been consistently changed throughout the manuscript.
Comments on line 154, 166, 213 and 354 regarding formatting all appear to have been caused during the upload of the word document to pdf and automated formatting for review. These cannot be managed in the submission process.
Line 311. "with the only difference being that Mud/sandy mud is more extensive in the Folk 5 classified map. which is most evident in the Fladen Grounds off eastern Scotland, the Oyster Ground north of the Netherlands and the Irish Sea." has been changed to "with the only difference being that Mud/sandy mud is more extensive in the Folk 5 classified map. These differences are most evident in the Fladen Grounds off eastern Scotland, the Oyster Ground north of the Netherlands and the Irish Sea."
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper, presenting a quantitative method of modelling sediment fractions and potential benthic habitats across large and diverse data sets, represents a significant step in the direction of developing reliable, comparable, analytically robust products from the wealth of data held by various institutions. Notably, it draws some interesting insights on the effect wave height have on sediment analysis and suggests a framework with which to assess the confidence possible in a given sediment map.
Normally I would provide a robust review of a paper, but this paper is written so well I can't pick on it. The methodology is robust, and refers to those works I consider most applicable to this work. I recommend publication with only a couple of minor edits. In particular;
Line 143: rational used instead of rationale,
Line 167: Uses the noun analyses in a context where I would consider the verb analysis more appropriate (however the authors may have had a different intent), and
Unrequired carriage returns on lines 283 and 354.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing and the constructive comments. We have addressed the minor edits as follows:
Line 143. rational changed to rationale.
Line 167. analyses changed to analysis.
The carriage returns in line 283 and 354 were not in the submitted text and must have been an error in the automated formatting for pdf during submission. I am not able to change these during submission, but they should be fixed during formatting for publication.
