-->PONE-D-24-60427-->-->Mangrove species classification using a proposed ensemble U-Net model and Planet satellite imagery: A case study in Ngoc Hien district, Ca Mau province, Vietnam-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pham,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Please revise the manuscript provided at the link above in accordance with the reviewers' comments and upload the revised version. Kindly take note of the following checklist:

1. Ensure that all references cited are directly relevant to the manuscript's content.
2. Clearly highlight any revisions made to the manuscript so that editors and reviewers can easily identify the changes.
3. Submit a cover letter addressing the reviewers' comments, detailing your responses point by point, and explaining the revisions made to the manuscript.
4. If the reviewers suggested additional references, critically assess their relevance and include them only if they enhance the quality of your manuscript. If you consider the suggested references unnecessary, you may omit them.
5. If there are comments in the review reports that you found impossible to address, provide a detailed explanation in your response.

-->-->Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria  and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 27 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rodrigo Nogueira Vasconcelos, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript has been reviewed by experts in the field and has received a "Major Review" classification. We kindly request that you carefully evaluate the reviewers' comments and implement the necessary revisions to address their feedback.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: The manuscript titled “Mangrove species classification using a proposed ensemble U-Net model and Planet satellite imagery: A case study in Ngoc Hien district, Ca Mau province, Vietnam” presents an interesting work on Mangrove species classification. However, the manuscript can be further improved in respect of the following points:

1. In line 28 on page 2, it should be “Intersection over Union”.

2. The literature survey can be improved focusing particularly on the work carried out for Mangrove species classification.

3. There is no mention about how the ground truth data was obtained.

4. Experiments can be carried out to prove the point of using a combination of Focal loss and Dice loss by assessing the impact of employing only the Focal loss or the Dice loss on the classification results. These results can be compared to those achieved using the combination of Focal loss and Dice loss.

5. What about the computational complexity of the models employed?

6. The quality of Figures 3, 4, and 5 needs to be improved.

7. In Table 2, the results for only four models, i. e., M3, M10, M12, and EM were shown, what about the other models?

Reviewer #2: Plant species identification using satellite images has been a widely addressed area of research. The novelty of this research is addressing a specific species, Mangrove, as a case study in Vietnam.

The following improvements are suggested.

1. It would be better to highlight the main research questions in the introduction section, and describe in the Discussion section, how you fulfilled those in the study, by referring to the applied methods and the obtained results.

2. Include a new section 2 for related studies. it would be better to consider ML based land use identification using satellite images published in recent years with the latest technologies. Discuss the techniques used in the related studies on land cover identification such as https://doi.org/10.1145/3056662.3056681 and https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119682042.ch1 together with the limitations in the existing studies and justify the proposed method.

You can consider other cropland identification work such as https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85214-2.00009-4 and https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-90550-3.00008-4

3. Clearly describe the novel scientific contribution. There are many U-net types available in the literature. Justify the selection of your approach with ensemble U-Net.

4. Your scientific contribution is sufficient. However, you need to justify the contributions.

5. Most of the figures are not clear. You have to refine the visualization aspects of your study.

6. Clearly state the used datasets and the number of images for different labels, before augmentation and the data fed to the training process. – That is, the considering the two labels buildings/ background, the number of images in each class for training, testing and validation sets. Discuss data balancing/ imbalancing.

7. Have you check the generalizability of the proposed model, for different datasets.

8. Consider the results graphs/ figures. Instead of stating as Fig. x shows…it would be better to explain the observations that can be seen in the graph, and discuss the conclusion that can be made from those graph observations. This will help readers to identify the importance of the findings.

9. In the discussion section, justify the achievements of the said contributions or research questions mentioned in the introduction, referring to the followed methodology and the obtained results.

10. Compare the results of this study with latest related work.

11. In the discussion, state the research limitations and the future possible extensions.

12. Discuss the possible practical applications, of this model.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Preetpal Kaur Buttar

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review_2.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review_1.docx

-->PONE-D-24-60427R1-->-->Mangrove species classification using a proposed ensemble U-Net model and Planet satellite imagery: A case study in Ngoc Hien district, Ca Mau province, Vietnam-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Minh Hai Pham,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Based on the reviewers' evaluations, minor improvements are needed to enhance the manuscript. One reviewer also indicated that further improvement is still required. Therefore, the decision is for a minor revision.-->-->

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 31 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

-->If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rodrigo Nogueira Vasconcelos, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #2: Paper is improved.

However, proofread well for the clarity and language improvements.

Since this paper is going to publish in 2025 , it would be better to include some more latest literature.

Reviewer #3: #1. Line no. 154 Hyperlink to mention the exact source and full path.

#2. Line Nos. 181 & 182 Mentioned "execution that does not need any installations," required import package installations or not for execution. Rephrase it.

#3. Line No. 186. GFLOPs for the first time mentioning the paragraph extent to full-length abbreviation.

#4. Line no. 210 and no. 210, no. 210, no. 210, and no. 210, no. 210, no.210,211 mentioned (1), (2), and (3) about table numbering or metric equation numbering not being addressed/referred to inside the paragraph text before or after the numbering with statement explanation.

#5. Line no. 221 after metric mentioning for precision and recall denominator "for precision, False Positives (FP)" and recall "False Negatives (FN):" Check the mentioned information and update accordingly.

#6. Equation no. 2: "gt" and "pr" full-length text abbreviation required.

#7. Line no . 243 in Equation no. 7 right form was "F1 Score = 2 ×" Precision × Recall / Precision + Recall," but it mentioned "Precision - Recall."

#8. Overall, all the equation numbering describes it before or after the numbering inside the paragraph with the reference number of the equation.

#9. Line no. 264 in the equation number 9 description area mentions "N is the total number of models," which is not present in equation no. 9.

#10. Figure 1 is required to be clear; the image is unclear and blurry.

#11. Figure 2.b labelled image caption titles are not clear.

#12. Figure 5 caption titles—type it clearly

* For your information : Note few mentioned equation numbering based on original submission.

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Dr Janarthanan Sekar

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.-->

Mangrove species classification using a proposed ensemble U-Net model and Planet satellite imagery: A case study in Ngoc Hien district, Ca Mau province, Vietnam

PONE-D-24-60427R2

Dear Dr. Pham,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Rodrigo Nogueira Vasconcelos, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: