Observing Spatiotemporal Inconsistency of Erosion and Accretion in the Barak River Using Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper should be published as the present form. 

Author Response

1. Comment: The paper should be published as the present form

Reply: The authors would like to thank the reviewer 1 for his/ her time to review this manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

I suggest focusing on the main advantages of your method, for presenting the novelty of your works. I would be inclined to consider publishing only if the above changes are made. Many studies previously have used machine learning methods in the field of erosion. I think a better review of the literature could provide a significant contribution to improving scientific knowledge. For example, "Susceptibility mapping of soil water erosion using machine learning models"; "Spatial prediction of soil erosion susceptibility using a fuzzy analytical network process: Application of the fuzzy decision making trial and evaluation laboratory approach"; "Ensemble models of GLM, FDA, MARS, and RF for flood and erosion susceptibility mapping: a priority assessment of sub-basins"; "Application of fuzzy analytical network process model for analyzing the gully erosion susceptibility"

Author Response

1. Comment: I suggest focusing on the main advantages of your method, for presenting the novelty of your works. I would be inclined to consider publishing only if the above changes are made. Many studies previously have used machine learning methods in the field of erosion. I think a better review of the literature could provide a significant contribution to improving scientific knowledge. For example, "Susceptibility mapping of soil water erosion using machine learning models"; "Spatial prediction of soil erosion susceptibility using a fuzzy analytical network process: Application of the fuzzy decision making trial and evaluation laboratory approach"; "Ensemble models of GLM, FDA, MARS, and RF for flood and erosion susceptibility mapping: a priority assessment of sub-basins"; "Application of fuzzy analytical network process model for analyzing the gully erosion susceptibility"

Reply:  For the study of the meandering of a river in river reach, ground survey is time-consuming and requires precise measurement, which changes after every flood event. Therefore, advanced techniques like geospatial tools and remote sensing data are suitable for finding the changes that occur over time at regular intervals at a planned scale. In different studies conducted in various major rivers of the world, it has been found that monitoring river erosion or accretion and geospatial techniques are more appropriate [20, 21].

We are thankful to reviewer 2 for these suggestions, and we have now incorporated the above literature as suggested by reviewer 2 in the revised manuscript in order to provide a significant contribution to improving scientific knowledge.

Reviewer 3 Report

General comment

The manuscript investigated the spatial-temporal changes of the river channel in the middle section of the Barak  River using remote sensing method. The authors found that the river channel changed dynamically during the past three decades, and tried to related the channel changes to LULC. The topic is important for watershed management, especially for areas around the channel. However, the manuscript can be improved and please find bellow my suggestion for updating & reinforcing the current paper.

 

Specific comments

1.     Paragraph to describe the background of the study in the abstract was too long and it should be simplified.

2. As we know, engineering measures, such as embankment, river dredging, and bed solidification, greatly affected the river channel changes. The authors should describe whether the study area had experienced these measures.
3. The data sources of the LUlC and their reliability should be described.
4. The flowchart in figure 2 should be simplified.
5. The relation between the channel changes and LULC changes was not well discussed.

Author Response

General comment

1. Comment: The manuscript investigated the spatial-temporal changes of the river channel in the middle section of the Barak River using remote sensing method. The authors found that the river channel changed dynamically during the past three decades, and tried to relate the channel changes to LULC. The topic is important for watershed management, especially for areas around the channel. However, the manuscript can be improved and please find bellow my suggestion for updating & reinforcing the current paper.

Reply: The authors would like to thank reviewer 3 for his/ her time and provide valuable comments and suggestions in order to improve this manuscript.

 Specific comments

1. Comment: The paragraph to describe the background of the study in the abstract was too long

and it should be simplified.

Reply: Thank you for this suggestion. We have now reduced the length of the paragraph in the abstract in the revised manuscript, as suggested by reviewer 3.

2. Comment: As we know, engineering measures, such as embankment, river dredging, and bed solidification, greatly affected the river channel changes. The authors should describe whether the study area had experienced these measures.

Reply: Thank you for this nice suggestion. The impact of embankments, river dredging, and bed solidification on the channel changes/channel shifting shall form the future course of work.

3. Comment: The data sources of the LULC and their reliability should be described.

Reply: Thank you for this suggestion. The basic data used in this study are multidate Landsat images of years 1984(MSS), 1992(TM), 2002(ETM), 2012(ETM), and 2017(OLI). Complete information on Landsat images for the present study is shown in the revised manuscript (Page 4, and Table 1). The Landsat TM/ETM images are readily accessible and can be freely downloaded. Besides assessing the temporal changes in the river morphology, Landsat images with high temporal resolution have been available almost for the last 3 decades and for all the seasons, which was the basis for choosing Landsat images for the current study. (Please refer to page number 5; line number 21-25)

4. Comment: The flowchart in figure 2 should be simplified.

Reply:  Thank you for this suggestion. We have now simplified figure 2 in the revised manuscript as suggested by reviewer 3.

5. Comment: The relation between the channel changes and LULC changes was not well discussed.

Reply: Thank you for this suggestion. We have now added a paragraph regarding the relation between LULC Changes with channel changes in the revised manuscript as suggested by river 3 (page 12, sections 3.5); Page 14 lines no 14-16

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. Comment: After reviewing the manuscript entitled "Observing spatiotemporal inconsistency of erosion and accretion in the Barak River using remote sensing and GIS techniques". The authors have used RS and GIS resources to assess the erosion and accretion of the river channel and to map changes in channel position as well as areas that remained unchanged using temporal remote sensing data. I am convinced that this manuscript is a nice piece of work and can be considered for publication after improvement.

Reply: The authors would like to thank the reviewer 4 for his/ her time and provide valuable comments and suggestions in order to improve this manuscript

Abstract:
Abstract needs the following improvements

1. Comment: The number of words should be within the widely accepted limit of 250.

Reply: Thank you for this suggestion. We have now reduced the limit of words to 250 in the revised manuscript, as suggested by reviewer 4.
2. Comment Materials and methods are not clearly described.

Reply: Thank you for this suggestion. We have now clearly described the materials and methods used in the revised manuscript as suggested by reviewer 4.

Introduction:
1. Comment:  I like this section. It's well-written! The references used are more relevant and recent to the topic.

Reply: The authors would like to thank reviewer 4 for his/ her time and provide valuable comments and suggestions in order to improve this manuscript.
Materials and Methods:
1. Comment:  The chapter on methodology is clearly analyzed.

Reply: The authors would like to thank reviewer 4 for his/ her time and provide valuable comments and suggestions in order to improve this manuscript.

Results and Discussion:

1. Comment: Besides LULC (vegetation) and slope, sediment loads also affect the river meandering process (please read the suggested literature). It is likely that the meandering patterns explored for Barak river are the cumulative effect of vegetation and sediment load. Since the authors have considered only the effect of vegetation, please explain, in the absence of sediment loads effect, how much plausible the results are. If not, please also consider the effect of sediment loads and revise the manuscript. It would be good also to quantify the relative effect of sediment loads and vegetation and maybe some other factors on the river meandering process.

Reply: In this study, the selected study area is chosen by taking a portion from the main river, and therefore the final deposition area of transported sediment could not be found; instead, the study investigated the rate of channel erosion and accretion along with historical changes that occurred within the selected reaches.

2. Comment: There seems to be a repetition of figures. It is suggested move figures 7 to 12 to supplementary materials and describe results in a consolidated form in one paragraph.

Reply: Analysis has been carried out separately from the year (1984-1992; 1992-2002; 2002-2012, 2012- 2017& 1984-2017). So, it is mandatory to show all the results separately for all the years.

3. Comment: On page 13, Line 225, I think the authors would like to replace the heading “3. Results” with  “ 4. Discussion:.

Reply: Thank you for noticing this error. We have now replaced the heading “3. Results” with “4 Discussion in the revised manuscript as suggested by reviewer 4.

4. Comment

Suggested literature:
Constantine, J., Dunne, T., Ahmed, J. et al. Sediment supply as a driver of river meandering and
floodplain evolution in the Amazon Basin. Nature Geosci 7, 899–903 (2014).
https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2282
Ielpi, A., Lapôtre, M.G.A., Gibling, M.R. et al. The impact of vegetation on meandering rivers.

NAT Rev Earth Environ 3, 165-178 (2022)  https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00249-6

Reply:   we have now incorporated the above-suggested literature in the revised manuscript in order to provide a significant contribution to improve the scientific knowledge as suggested by reviewer 4.

 Conclusions and Future Scope:

  

1. Comment: Please also provide the limitations of the study.

Reply:  Thank you we have now incorporated the limitations of the study in the revised manuscript as suggested by the reviewer 4. Please refer to Page Number 15 Lines 19-21 in the revised manuscript

2. Comment: Reference to Page 15/Lines 427-429, the author states that “Barak Rivers show dynamic behavior in terms of erosion, accretion, and an unchanged area which is encouraged by various factors like water discharge, sediment loads, slope, intense rainfall, and anthropogenic activities.” How did the authors reach this conclusion that water discharge, sediment loads, and intense rainfall affect the meandering process in Barak River even without considering them in the analysis? The conclusions should be based on the author’s research results. This part should be revised.

Reply: Thank you for noticing this we have now removed this sentence in the revised manuscript as because our analysis was simply based on the rate of erosion, deposition and unchanged area but not on the factors like water discharge, sediment loads, slope, intense rainfall, and anthropogenic activities.

References:
 1. Comment:  The references list needs a double-check.

Reply: All the references have been appropriately checked by the authors as suggested by reviewer 4.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript can be accepted after minor revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for your comments on our manuscript. 

Comment: The manuscript can be accepted after minor revision.

Response: We have made sure that where ever there was any issue pertaining to clarity, language, context, and coherence was rectified in this second revision of the manuscript.

PLEASE NOTE THAT, IN THE SECOND ROUND OF REVISION, WE HAVE ONLY SHOWN CHANGES MADE IN THE SECOND ROUND. THE FIRST ROUND CHANGES WERE ACCEPTED SO THAT THE CHANGES IN THE SECOND ROUND ONLY ARE PROMINENT.

We hope that this time our manuscript may kindly be endorsed for publication.

 

Best regards

Gowhar Meraj

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx