Characterizing Global Patterns of Mangrove Canopy Height and Aboveground Biomass Derived from SRTM Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Strengths

2. The idea and concept of the paper are good. Although the height and biomass aspect has been studied previously the trends of height and biomass to latitude and their distribution pattern in both hemisphere is strong and novel in this paper.
3. The introduction follows a good flow and clearly explains the study pattern.
4. The relevant methodology has been used.
5. Shortcomings or errors or the study have been mentioned and explained as type A and type B errors. Type A has been corrected and explained while type B has been let go with an explanation.
6. The research design is appropriate and the methodology is adequately defined.
7. The results are clearly presented and relevant references have been used in the article.

 

 Weakness:

1. The term Environmental factor is a very broad term, used in abstract and conclusion. Are they physical, biological, chemical or economical?
2. Although the conclusions are supported by results yet the conclusion lacks a proper conclusion and is rather a critical statement or discussion. It should be refined and rewritten.
3. Few grammar mistakes are present in the paper
4.  Line 11, delete the words “information only”.
5.    The global distributions of mangrove heights indicate that the maximum heights of mangroves are constrained by environmental factors that correlate with latitudes. This should not be part of abstract
6. clearly mention, how your study is different /improved from the previous research mentioned at ref. no.17.
7. add, equation and r2 value on Figure 1.
8.    What is the reason for such asymmetrical behaviour? Line 203
9.  you mentioned environmental factors but did not elaborate, add some information from existing literature and explain it.
10.   it could not be part of the conclusion it can be moved to the discussion section. the conclusion should be purely based on their own analysis and experiments

Author Response

Thank you for your useful comments, we made the corrections accordingly. Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Developing the carbon sink potential of mangroves in the coastal zone and finding out the background of carbon sink are the premise of promoting the sustainable and orderly development of coastal wetland carbon sink. Mangrove aboveground biomass is an important indicator of mangrove blue carbon. Therefore, it is of great significance to evaluate the aboveground biomass of global mangroves. Using SRTM elevation data, the authors found and evaluated the global pattern of mangrove canopy height and its corresponding aboveground biomass in the northern and southern hemispheres. This theme is very good and provides an important reference for the formulation of an appropriate management plan for global mangrove ecosystem sustainability. My suggestions for this manuscript are as follows:

(1) In the introduction, the author does not fully review the application of active remote sensing and optical remote sensing in mangrove height, and more explanations are needed to explain the relationship between Mangrove height and biomass.

(2) The resolution and quality of FIGS. 1 and 2 should be improved.

(3) It is suggested that the author add a technology roadmap and describe it with some words.

(4) How applicable is the empirical model used and can it represent the global scale? More description is needed to describe the details of the model.

(5) Section 3.2 text format error.

(6) Lines 267-269 require references.

(7) Line 278: missing references.

(8) The limitations of SRTM elevation data should be increased and more in-depth discussions should be conducted to demonstrate why SRTM elevation data can work well in this case study.

(9) Generally speaking, the model has some limitations, including empirical model. The author should explain this at the end of the discussion.

Author Response

Thank you for your useful comments, we did the corrections accordingly. Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version has been revised according to the relevant comments.