Dear editor, dear authors,
I was asked to review the article “Characteristics of debris avalanche deposits inferred from source volume estimate and hummock morphology around Mt Erciyes, central Turkey” by Hayakawa Y. S. et al. submitted for final publication in NHESS after the interactive discussion and public commenting by two referees and the editor. The paper presents a very interesting morphometric approach to characterize and analyze debris avalanche deposits in a study case in Turkey. The methodological approach seems sound and robust resulting in a promising workflow that could be very useful for other researchers dealing with the morphologic characterization of hummocks. I think the authors have strengthened considerably their work in the last version of the manuscript by addressing all the issues raised by the reviewer and especially those raised by the editor. In my opinion, in the current version of the manuscript, the relation of this study with natural hazards is emphasized and information on the accuracy of the used topographic data have been provided.
Before publication, I suggest some minor additional changes:
P. 2, L. 1: add “in” before “a different…”
P. 6, L. 29-30: Why did you use contour lines to trace the mound boundaries and not directly a shaded relief map? Is there any specific reason (e.g., shaded area…)? If so, please clarify this point
P. 7 L. 9-14: here you are stating that you used two directionality indices but, from the text, it is difficult to distinguish them. Especially the sentence “The main direction of the DAD in the study site is the north” could be misinterpreted because of the second index (displacement angle against the flow direction of DAD), if the direction is North, is identical to the first index. Could you please rephrase this paragraph?
P. 9, L. 3-16: All this paragraph, reporting accuracy evaluation through GCPs of the UAV-DEM, seems more appropriate in the methods chapter than in the results section. |