Next Article in Journal
Tree Rings of European Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) Indicate the Relationship with Solar Cycles during Climate Change in Central and Southern Europe
Previous Article in Journal
Transcriptome Analysis for Fraxinus mandshurica Rupr. Seedlings from Different Carbon Sequestration Provenances in Response to Nitrogen Deficiency
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/f12020258
Review Report
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Novel Tree Biomass Estimation Model Applying the Pipe Model Theory and Adaptable to UAV-Derived Canopy Height Models

Forests 2021, 12(2), 258; https://doi.org/10.3390/f12020258
by Takashi Machimura 1,*, Ayana Fujimoto 1, Kiichiro Hayashi 2, Hiroaki Takagi 3 and Satoru Sugita 4
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Forests 2021, 12(2), 258; https://doi.org/10.3390/f12020258
Submission received: 3 February 2021 / Revised: 12 February 2021 / Accepted: 18 February 2021 / Published: 23 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Inventory, Modeling and Remote Sensing)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Please find the comments attached.

Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The authors sincerely give thanks to the reviewer who has kindly provided precise and valuable advices to help the improvement of the quality of our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript following your advises, and we answer to all the comments. Please find in the notes of the PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript was aimed to develop a new tree biomass estimation model adopted to UAV observations of forest canopies based on the pipe model theory.

The topic of the study is interesting and of current interest. The methodology described has a scientific background and novelty. The manuscript is well written and has a good understandable structure.

However, there are several comments to be considered to improve the manuscript:

Line 69: these three approaches estimate biomass from estimates, not from measurements in the field.

Line 109: woody organs – is this the same as woody mass (stem and brunches)?

Line 151, 166: I would recommend to mention here about type of the camera used (RGB?) and spatial resolution.

Line 215, 224-229: the section about field measurements is absent. It is recommended to include the information to the separate section about field data.

Line 244: Figure 3, right graph, axis X. The distance between 1 and 2 does not correspond to the distance between 2 and 3.

Line 323. Description of Figure 6. ..and leaves below the height? Or below the canopy?

Line 338. As an example to compare your results with other studies I would recommend Marzulli et al. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpz067, Krauss et al. 2019, Goodbody et al. 2016 https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2016.1219425.

Line 436-439: Information about UAV-Lidar systems can be moved to the Intro.

Line 463: potentially could be applicable.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors sincerely give thanks to the reviewer who has kindly provided precise and valuable advices to help the improvement of the quality of our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript following your advises, and we answer to all  the comments. Please find in the response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop