Research on Chlorophyll-a Concentration Retrieval Based on BP Neural Network Model—Case Study of Dianshan Lake, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1) Sampling points given in green and red colors and numbers are given from 1 to 77, how we can understand that ID 1 given in Table1 in the map of Figure 1?

2) line 153, december 22, but table 2 shows decmber 21?

3) how could you understand about cloud content?

4) Table 3. Parameters of OLI land imager. OLI write in full...All tables or figures, don't provide the acronyms.

5) Divide the Methodology, Results and Discussion, the given Research Methods and Discussion it's confusing. Results given in very short form, which need to be enlarged. The discussion has not been done elaborately, so I request to divide the sections.

6) Can you provide the flow chart for BP neural network method.

7) Table 5. Correlation correlation analysis of highly correlated band combinations

8) Table 5 is confusing. Too many tables and figures are given, I can suggest5 to show the relevant tables and figures and some can be transferred to spplementary files.

9) Table 6. Inputs List.  I don't understand this table...

10) More references can be added.

11) English needs to be revised. Many typo and grammar mistakes are found.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewers, experts:

Greetings! First, thank you for your patience and careful guidance. In response to the review comments of the reviewer, I combined the original article to answer the questions and form the text. In order to facilitate the experts to re-examine, I will carry out the various problems pointed out by the experts. Provided a one-to-one answer and marked the key content in red.

Finally, thank you again and the reviewers for your valuable comments! And at the same time, I hope that if you find any deficiencies again during the review process, please inform us in time, and I will make further amendments to the suggestions.Please see the attachment.

Sincerely,

Qian.chuyi

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript describes a way to retrieve the Chlorophyll-a concentration data by using a back propagation neural network model. Both the Landsat-8 data and direct measure data were analyzed and compared. the results of this study indicate the efficiency of BP neural network model in the retrieval of the Chl-a. this study provides basic framework for retrieval the Chl-a data by the neural network model. The content of the study is suitable to the topic of this journal. Besides, the text of this manuscript is concise and easily understood. However, I found that the arrangement of this manuscript should be improved. Therefore, I suggest this manuscript might be accepted after the authors consider those observations I include in the following lines.

 

1. Line 57. Delete “at home and abroad” (the same as line 77 and line 79, delete “foreign” and “domestic”).

2. Lines 69-70. “fewer studies on the retrieval of Chl-a concentration in third-class water bodies.” Since the author highlighted that there were few studies on the third-class water, there is a need to compare the characters of different classes, especially focusing on how each class may affect the measurement of Chl-a.

3. Lines 87-90. The description of the data of this study should move to the end of the introduction.

4. Over all, there is no clearly scientific question and objectivities in the introduction, please clarify it.

5. Lines 115-123, need citation.

6. This manuscript used both “sampling point” and “ monitoring site”, are they the same meaning?

7. Line 130. How to determine which point is valid?

8. Line 156. Add the full name of “OLI”

9. Line 168. The subtitle 3. Research Methods and Discussion is not appropriate. If part 3 is methods and discussion, why result (line 366) listed behind the discussion?

10. Line 366. Too short of 4. Results. I also found many results in lines 282-365. The authors are suggested to improve the arrangement of this manuscript.

11. Line 240-241. Duplicate with Line 137. Too many redundant wordings in this manuscript. 

12. Line 384. It's better to use the same legend for a and b panels.

13. Line 387. Too many words in the conclusion, simplify it.

Author Response

Dear reviewers, experts:

Greetings! First, thank you for your patience and careful guidance. In response to the review comments of the reviewer, I combined the original article to answer the questions and form the text. In order to facilitate the experts to re-examine, I will carry out the various problems pointed out by the experts. Provided a one-to-one answer and marked the key content in red.

Finally, thank you again and the reviewers for your valuable comments! And at the same time, I hope that if you find any deficiencies again during the review process, please inform us in time, and I will make further amendments to the suggestions.Please see the attachment.

Sincerely,

Qian.chuyi

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have improvised the manuscript mainly by English editing.

Discussion looks like results and lacking of comparison with any other previous data. It needs to be completely revised by comparing with other results of the cited or new references with citations. 

A similar study was published in MDPI remote sensing, but  not cited here.

[Deep Learning for Chlorophyll-a Concentration Retrieval: A Case Study for the Pearl River Estuary]

You need to discuss what's the difference between this and your studies? 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear experts:

Thank you for your further suggestions and giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript for publication. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper.Please see the attachment.

Sincerely,

Qian.chuyi.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised manuscript has addressed all of my concerns, therefor I suggest accepting this manuscript in its present form.

Author Response

Dear experts:

Thank you for your suggestions .We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper.

Sincerely,

Qian.chuyi.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have not done anything on discussion. Just added some citations. My comment is, "each result of this research article, need to be compared with other published results", added only 3 citations. 

I don't understand what is the meaning of these sentences written in the discussion!!

Discussion:

This paper studies the method of four arithmetic operations and exponential operations for band combination. There are various types of band combinations constructed, and there are many types of band combinations. The retrieval accuracy has been enhanced. It is preferable to enter the different types of band combinations into a database for future research.

Author Response

Dear experts:

Thank you for your further suggestions and giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript for publication. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper.

We will take your comments seriously and seriously. We will make efforts to revise the content of the article.Please see the attachment.

Sincerely,

Qian.chuyi.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx