Assessment and Forecast of Shoreline Change Using Geo-Spatial Techniques in the Gulf of California
, Wenseslao Plata-Rocha 1, Sergio Alberto Monjardin-Armenta 1 and Cuauhtémoc Franco-Ochoa 2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewer
The manuscript submitted by Zambrano-Medina et al. investigated the medium-term shoreline evolution of the Gulf of California (Mexico) by applying the GIS DSAS tool to satellite imageries. The shoreline change rates were used to forecast the future coastal position through the Kalman filter method. The manuscript has such potential and is of quite interest in the field, but some improvements are required to enhanced the quality of the work.
Abstract:
The abstract is clear and provides a good sum-up of the work including the primary key findings of the research. However, the text should be carefully checked, such misspelling should be fixed. Check comments within the pdf file.
Introduction:
The introduction is too long, try to be more concise and use this section to show the state of the art on the topic field you are working on and why your research is addressing the need to fill such scientific gaps.
Study Area
The study area section is well arranged, clear and concise. All the information needed to describe the geographical and physical setting of the area are provided. However, Figure 1 should be refined, the resolution of the image is too low to easily detect such lines or text parts.
Data and Methods:
The methods section includes a detailed description of the design and setting of the study, and the description of the analyses performed seems clear. However, further remarks and changes need to be made. The paragraph from lines 211 to 226 could be removed, within the material and methods section any kind of literature review should be reported. As for the previous section, the data and methods here presented are exhaustive, but the section is too long, as such, the main advice is to be more concise and provide only the information that is exclusively useful for the aim of this paper.
Results and Discussions
Please check the correctness of the paragraph numbering. The main advice is to redraft the Result section, too many subsections are included, for example, the first paragraph of the Result section, which consists of only one figure, should be integrated with the following subparagraphs. However, such concerns may be raised on the computation of the shoreline change rates, the advice is to try to compare the results emerged by the analysis with other papers results. Many examples can be found worldwide, following such papers from the Mediterranean areas:
- Laksono FAT, Borzì L, Distefano S, Di Stefano A, Kovács J. Shoreline Prediction Modelling as a Base Tool for Coastal Management: The Catania Plain Case Study (Italy). Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2022; 10(12):1988. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10121988- Molina, R.; Anfuso, G.; Manno, G.; Gracia Prieto, F.J. The Mediterranean Coast of Andalusia (Spain): Medium-Term Evolution and Impacts of Coastal Structures. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3539. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133539
Moreover, such results seem to be a bit out of scale, even though the study area is one of the places in the world with the highest tidal excursion, but, as you mentioned, any significant strong waves and currents characterized the case study area. As such, how do you explain such high shoreline changes in a medium-term time interval?
As already mentioned, all the figures should be redrafted and refined, especially for the resolution quality.
General Comments:
The idea of the paper well fits with the journal's scope. However, many changes are required to improve the quality of the manuscript, first of all, the Results and Discussions section must be redrafted to clearly show the huge work done by the authors. It is highly recommended to discuss their main insights in light of other similar works already performed worldwide and catch phenomena similarities between different places. It is also highly recommended to be more concise and go straight to the heart of the matter. Lastly, all the figures must be refined, the resolution quality is too low and the images resulted to be not easily detectable.
For the abovementioned reasons, major revisions are required.
Author Response
Thank you for the comments on our manuscript entitled " Assessment and Forecast of Shoreline Change Using Geo-Spatial Techniques in the Gulf of California" (land-2297505). We appreciate the suggested modifications and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments are shown in blue text and presented as follows:
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
The manuscript submitted by Zambrano-Medina et al. investigated the medium-term shoreline evolution of the Gulf of California (Mexico) by applying the GIS DSAS tool to satellite imageries. The shoreline change rates were used to forecast the future coastal position through the Kalman filter method. The manuscript has such potential and is of quite interest in the field, but some improvements are required to enhanced the quality of the work.
Response: Thank you for the time devoted to reading our manuscript and for all these comments. We have reviewed all the work and made some changes that may help the readers go through it.
Abstract:
The abstract is clear and provides a good sum-up of the work including the primary key findings of the research. However, the text should be carefully checked, such misspelling should be fixed. Check comments within the pdf file.
Response: The PDF file mentioned by the reviewer was not found attached. However, spelling corrections were made in the text of the entire document and especially in the abstract. These corrections are detectable in the word change control.
Introduction:
The introduction is too long, try to be more concise and use this section to show the state of the art on the topic field you are working on and why your research is addressing the need to fill such scientific gaps.
Response: The following text was removed from the introduction:
“In addition, the anthropic influence on the coasts has generated a great impact on the natural and socio-productive ecosystems [7].”
“resulting in the implementation of more effective strategies to manage changes along the coast”
“through nine missions that provided a historical record of terrestrial observation, being an effective tool for mapping and monitoring information of extensive shorelines with lower time and costs than conventional methods [24].”, and “as well as changes in terrain and land cover, therefore, it is important in environmental monitoring”.
“Shoreline identification requires the selection and definition of a shoreline indicator feature that is used as a proxy to represent the true position of the shoreline and the detection of the selected shoreline feature within the chosen data source [1].”
“Therefore, images containing visible and infrared bands are widely used to map the shoreline.”
Study Area
The study area section is well arranged, clear and concise. All the information needed to describe the geographical and physical setting of the area are provided. However, Figure 1 should be refined, the resolution of the image is too low to easily detect such lines or text parts.
Response: New image incorporated into line 145.
Data and Methods:
The methods section includes a detailed description of the design and setting of the study, and the description of the analyses performed seems clear. However, further remarks and changes need to be made. The paragraph from lines 211 to 226 could be removed, within the material and methods section any kind of literature review should be reported. As for the previous section, the data and methods here presented are exhaustive, but the section is too long, as such, the main advice is to be more concise and provide only the information that is exclusively useful for the aim of this paper.
Response: we have deleted the recommended paragraph and the following text:
“It has been a central component of the Coastal Change Hazards project, undergoing continuous changes mainly in statistics and user interface.”
“Uncertainty quantification is a crucial procedure in the analysis of shoreline change since rates of change are only valid within a range of measurement errors and must be considered before any decision on shoreline variability.
2.5.2. EPR Uncertainty”
Results and Discussions
Please check the correctness of the paragraph numbering. The main advice is to redraft the Result section, too many subsections are included, for example, the first paragraph of the Result section, which consists of only one figure, should be integrated with the following subparagraphs. However, such concerns may be raised on the computation of the shoreline change rates, the advice is to try to compare the results emerged by the analysis with other papers results. Many examples can be found worldwide, following such papers from the Mediterranean areas:
- Laksono FAT, Borzì L, Distefano S, Di Stefano A, Kovács J. Shoreline Prediction Modelling as a Base Tool for Coastal Management: The Catania Plain Case Study (Italy). Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2022; 10(12):1988. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10121988
- Molina, R.; Anfuso, G.; Manno, G.; Gracia Prieto, F.J. The Mediterranean Coast of Andalusia (Spain): Medium-Term Evolution and Impacts of Coastal Structures. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3539. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133539
Response: The section on results and discussion was modified in response to the observations made. The proposed citations were included, as well as the following additional ones:
https://doi.org/10.3390/coasts2030008
https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10050172
https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci6040071
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10121801
Moreover, such results seem to be a bit out of scale, even though the study area is one of the places in the world with the highest tidal excursion, but, as you mentioned, any significant strong waves and currents characterized the case study area. As such, how do you explain such high shoreline changes in a medium-term time interval?
Response: Along the coast of the Gulf of California, the most significant changes occur in the upper Gulf. During the digitizing process, we did not obtain the water-land boundary, but rather an approximation of the HWL seen in the image as the upper wet sand boundary. Using the wet/dry line as an approximation of the HWL reduces the error due to the variation in the tide. In addition, the objective of the shoreline analysis was to evaluate the erosion and accretion trends and not the exact evidence for coastal forcing as a driver of the observed shoreline shifts, however, a review of the literature allows us to argue that they are a response to the combined effects of natural processes with those of human activities and climate change (Line 382-397). Also, the local response is due to several issues, such as the presence of islands, the particularities of the bathymetry, and the geological aspects of the coast.
However, due to the large extension of the study area, it is not possible to establish the main cause of coastal erosion during the period analyzed for specific zones.
The results obtained in this study and the literature review provide information to identify the factors that have contributed to shoreline changes. These factors can be anthropogenic, such as beachfront construction, coastal engineering structures, sand mining, etc., or natural such as tides, waves, etc. It is also worth mentioning that the following lines 449-464 and 476-483 of the manuscript mention specific factors that have contributed to shoreline changes in the upper Gulf of California.
As already mentioned, all the figures should be redrafted and refined, especially for the resolution quality.
Response: New images added.
General Comments:
The idea of the paper well fits with the journal's scope. However, many changes are required to improve the quality of the manuscript, first of all, the Results and Discussions section must be redrafted to clearly show the huge work done by the authors. It is highly recommended to discuss their main insights in light of other similar works already performed worldwide and catch phenomena similarities between different places. It is also highly recommended to be more concise and go straight to the heart of the matter. Lastly, all the figures must be refined, the resolution quality is too low and the images resulted to be not easily detectable.
For the abovementioned reasons, major revisions are required.
Response: We hope our manuscript will achieve your approval. If not, we are available to resolve any issue or proceed with further revisions as necessary.
Thank you!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1- It is necessary to modify the title of the article a little.
2- The necessity of the research method is not mentioned in the abstract section, which should be added. From the point of view of remote sensing science and according to the provided flow sheet, the research results are acceptable.
3- It is necessary to explain in the text of the article why Landsat satellite information was used for the years with unusual intervals of 1981, 1993, 2004, 2010, and 2020.
4- The quality of images and their scales are reviewed and uploaded again.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
1- It is necessary to modify the title of the article a little.
Response: The title was modified:
Line 2-3. Assessment and Forecast of Shoreline Change Using Geo-Spatial Techniques in the Gulf of California.
2- The necessity of the research method is not mentioned in the abstract section, which should be added. From the point of view of remote sensing science and according to the provided flow sheet, the research results are acceptable.
Response: The need for research methods is added.
Line 14-16. “In this context, shoreline changes in the Gulf of California (GC), Mexico, have received little attention and no previous studies have addressed future forecasting.”
3- It is necessary to explain in the text of the article why Landsat satellite information was used for the years with unusual intervals of 1981, 1993, 2004, 2010, and 2020.
Response: The following text was added:
Line 176-181. “The assessment of shoreline variability started with the oldest year, 1981, which covered the entire coastal area of the CG, this being one of the fundamental requirements. Subsequently, the years with periods longer than ten years corresponding to 1993, 2004, and 2020 that also cover the GC coastal zone were selected, and the year 2010 was added to run the model with the forecast to 2020 and validate the results.”
4- The quality of images and their scales are reviewed and uploaded again.
Response: New images added.
We hope our manuscript will achieve your approval. If not, we are available to resolve any issue or proceed with further revisions as necessary.
Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors submitted an interesting manuscript dealing with an assessment and forecasting of shoreline dynamic change position using satellite images. The methodology is well described, and the conclusions are supported by the results. However, the quality of Figures is not good and most of the references provided are not accessible and not recent.
Below are some comments and suggestions to improve the overall quality of the manuscript:
Line 42: It would be better if you could put the section of the Study Area into as a subsection of Material and Methods (line 171)
Lines 96-99: Please provide references of recent studies conducted dealing with shoreline extraction from satellite images. The current “7. Pérez, M.A.O.; Santana, J.R.H.; Mah, J.M.F. Coastline’s Changes in the Balsas River Delta, Mexico, between the Years 1943-2009. Investig. Geogr. 2017, 2017, 20–36, doi:10.14350/rig.56578”, is not recent and is in the language other than English. Please refer to (1) Randazzo, G.; Barreca, G.; Cascio, M.; Crupi, A.; Fontana, M.; Gregorio, F.; Lanza, S.; Muzirafuti, A. Analysis of Very High Spatial Resolution Images for Automatic Shoreline Extraction and Satellite-Derived Bathymetry Mapping. Geosciences 2020, 10, 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10050172, (2) Abdul Maulud, K.N.; Selamat, S.N.; Mohd, F.A.; Md Noor, N.; Wan Mohd Jaafar, W.S.; Kamarudin, M.K.A.; Ariffin, E.H.; Adnan, N.A.; Ahmad, A. Assessment of Shoreline Changes for the Selangor Coast, Malaysia, Using the Digital Shoreline Analysis System Technique. Urban Sci. 2022, 6, 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci6040071, (3) Vallarino Castillo, R.; Negro Valdecantos, V.; Moreno Blasco, L. Shoreline Change Analysis Using Historical Multispectral Landsat Images of the Pacific Coast of Panama. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1801. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10121801.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
He authors submitted an interesting manuscript dealing with an assessment and forecasting of shoreline dynamic change position using satellite images. The methodology is well described, and the conclusions are supported by the results. However, the quality of Figures is not good and most of the references provided are not accessible and not recent.
Response: New images were incorporated, and recent references were added.
Below are some comments and suggestions to improve the overall quality of the manuscript:
Line 42: It would be better if you could put the section of the Study Area into as a subsection of Material and Methods (line 171)
Response: Incorporated in the subsection of Material and Methods to lines 132-160.
Lines 96-99: Please provide references of recent studies conducted dealing with shoreline extraction from satellite images. The current “7. Pérez, M.A.O.; Santana, J.R.H.; Mah, J.M.F. Coastline’s Changes in the Balsas River Delta, Mexico, between the Years 1943-2009. Investig. Geogr. 2017, 2017, 20–36, doi:10.14350/rig.56578”, is not recent and is in the language other than English. Please refer to (1) Randazzo, G.; Barreca, G.; Cascio, M.; Crupi, A.; Fontana, M.; Gregorio, F.; Lanza, S.; Muzirafuti, A. Analysis of Very High Spatial Resolution Images for Automatic Shoreline Extraction and Satellite-Derived Bathymetry Mapping. Geosciences 2020, 10, 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10050172, (2) Abdul Maulud, K.N.; Selamat, S.N.; Mohd, F.A.; Md Noor, N.; Wan Mohd Jaafar, W.S.; Kamarudin, M.K.A.; Ariffin, E.H.; Adnan, N.A.; Ahmad, A. Assessment of Shoreline Changes for the Selangor Coast, Malaysia, Using the Digital Shoreline Analysis System Technique. Urban Sci. 2022, 6, 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci6040071, (3) Vallarino Castillo, R.; Negro Valdecantos, V.; Moreno Blasco, L. Shoreline Change Analysis Using Historical Multispectral Landsat Images of the Pacific Coast of Panama. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1801. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10121801.
Response:
The recommended references are added to lines 87-91, and the non-recent reference is eliminated.
We hope our manuscript will achieve your approval. If not, we are available to resolve any issue or proceed with further revisions as necessary.
Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have taken all suggestions and edited the manuscript extensively and the work in the present form can be published.
