A Potential Beach Monitoring Based on Integrated Methods
, Stefania Lisco 1,2,*, Luigi Capozzoli 3, Francesco De Giosa 4, Giuseppe Mastronuzzi 1,2, Daniela Mele 1, Salvatore Milli 5,6, Gerardo Romano 1, François Sabatier 7, Giovanni Scardino 1,2 and Massimo Moretti 1,2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
For beach monitoring, many countries or states have established monitoring standards. Therefore, it seems inappropriate to use "standard procedure" in this article.
If the authors really need to use this word, they need to define the region, for example, A standard procedure for monitoring sandy beaches in Italy. If authors want to recommend this monitoring process in a wide areas, the following title is recommended:
A potential beach geological monitoring model based on integrated methods
The overall work of the article is in line with the research method of the beach. Some suggestions are as follows:
1. The article is not concise enough. It can be written again to simplify
2. Whether the beach thickness obtained by GPR and SBP, SBP+GPS, ERT+GPS is feasible, especially for the underwater part
3. Because two beaches are measured, it better to discuss whether the method is suitable for the two beaches, what are the differences and what should be noted
4 It may be necessary to specify the geological monitoring of the beach, otherwise it may also be necessary to consider the ecological monitoring of the beach or environmental monitoring.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
REV.1 : For beach monitoring, many countries or states have established monitoring standards. Therefore, it seems inappropriate to use "standard procedure" in this article. If the authors really need to use this word, they need to define the region, for example, A standard procedure for monitoring sandy beaches in Italy. If authors want to recommend this monitoring process in a wide area, the following title is recommended: A potential beach geological monitoring model based on integrated methods.
Response: The reviewer is right, and we decided to replace the title with:
“A potential beach monitoring based on integrated methods”.
Moreover, the term “standard” was replaced in the manuscript with “potential” or removed.
REV.1 : The overall work of the article is in line with the research method of the beach. Some suggestions are as follows:
REV.1 point 1: The article is not concise enough. It can be written again to simplify.
Response: We simplified some sentences that were too long to make the text more concise and readable. We also corrected the verb tenses. In the manuscripit we highlighted the changes.
REV.1 point 2: Whether the beach thickness obtained by GPR and SBP, SBP+GPS, ERT+GPS is feasible, especially for the underwater part.
Response: The proposed methodology allows to obtain a direct control only of the GPR, as excavations were carried out during the field measure in the emerged beach sector. On the other hand, the SBP provides data calibrated with the velocity of the sediments that are crossed by the signals. ERT is used to connect them. Although the methodology in the underwater part could be confirmed with coring (e.g. destruction coring), the bedrock depth is reliable because in the literature the velocities of sediments are standard. GPS is used for locating data. In order to add more detailed information about the SBP procedure as reliable technique we added: - Line 359 – 361: The SBP exploits the elastic properties of the ground to reconstruct the stratigraphic succession of deposits occurring below the seabed. Each surface that marks a litho-logical transition or any acoustic impedance such as the water/sediment passage represents an elastic discontinuity capable of reflecting part of the seismic energy. The reflected signal is received by a transducer and sent to the visualization program by creating a seismic section. The signal penetration and reflection depend on the frequency and the sediment physical properties.
REV.1 point 3: Because two beaches are measured, it better to discuss whether the method is suitable for the two beaches, what are the differences and what should be noted.
Response: The reviewer is right, and we added this information to the discussion section.
- Line 537: Torre Guaceto and Le Dune represent two different pocket beaches in terms of length, sedimentology, composition, dynamics, and anthropic impact. For this reason, some considerations raised during the investigation. Geophysics provided detailed results of the submerged sector at Torre Guaceto than Le Dune beach. The rocky seabed in the latter affected the navigation along the shoreface transect requiring a major support from electrical tomography. The closed beach system, the morphology of the seabed and the urbanization of the dune environment influenced the progress of the investigations. It would have been interesting to measure the sediment thicknesses along different cross-shore transects, but the southern sector was affected by a significant urbanization.
REV.1 point 4: It may be necessary to specify the geological monitoring of the beach, otherwise it may also be necessary to consider the ecological monitoring of the beach or environmental monitoring.
Response: We suggest a procedure for beach monitoring which essentially includes the monitoring of physical matrices. Biological monitoring only concerns the production of terrigenous particles.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting paper that uses many analyses and surveys for giving a standard procedure for monitoring sandy beaches. This work has positive significance for the scientific community as well as practitioners to standardize the monitoring of sandy beaches. This article thus has the potential to be an important contribution. However, there are several minor issues with the article.
Carbonate petrologists have replaced calcarenite by terms that more accurately describe texture and composition and that have narrower genetic implications (e.g., biosparite). Please describe the calcarenites accordingly to this, if it is possible.
Figures 8-10, and 12.: The landscape photos are confusing because they are not horizontal (The sea flows out of the picture).
Figure 14.: Instead of 'eolic', use eolian
Line 227: Typo - 'intrabacinal' - intrabasinal
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
REV.2 : This is an interesting paper that uses many analyses and surveys for giving a standard procedure for monitoring sandy beaches. This work has positive significance for the scientific community as well as practitioners to standardize the monitoring of sandy beaches. This article thus has the potential to be an important contribution. However, there are several minor issues with the article.
Carbonate petrologists have replaced calcarenite by terms that more accurately describe texture and composition and that have narrower genetic implications (e.g., biosparite). Please describe the calcarenites accordingly to this, if it is possible.
Response: The bedrock nature is generally referred to calcarenite because the study focused on the loose sediments above the bedrock. However, the reviewer is right and the calcarenites that form the bedrock could be better defined as biocalcarenites (grainstone and packstone texture). The term calcarenite was then replaced in the results section (line 495).
REV.2 :Figures 8-10, and 12.: The landscape photos are confusing because they are not horizontal (The sea flows out of the picture).
Response: The reviewer is right. The photos are not horizontal, but the pictures only depict the procedure in qualitative terms.
REV.2 :Figure 14.: Instead of 'eolic', use eolian
Response: We corrected the term.
REV.2 :Line 227: Typo - 'intrabacinal' – intrabasinal
Response: We corrected the term.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
