The Semantic Segmentation of Standing Tree Images Based on the Yolo V7 Deep Learning Algorithm
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. What is the main question addressed by the research? Semantic segmentation for arbor images. 2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Accepted. The gaps have been addressed accordingly. However, it can be improved. 3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? Yes. 4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered? Please check my comments. 5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Yes. 6. Are the references appropriate? Please check my comments. Additional Comments: 1. Abstract- It is recommended to have 5 keywords. 2. It is recommended to highlight your improvement/modification of the existing deep learning segmentation technique of Yolo v7. 3. Introduction- Abbreviation of DBH. Must include the full abbreviation at the first time you write it. Please recheck the other abbreviations through out the manuscript. 4. Figure 1 and its statements are not appropriate to be included in chapter 1. It is recommended to move them into chapter 2. 5. The introduction chapter is not strong enough. Must be improved. 6. Must include the contribution of your study in chapter 1. 7. Must include the novelty of your study. 8. It is not necessary to write "About..." as stated in chapter 2.6, 3, 3.3 and so on. Please delete them. Recheck through out the manuscript. 9. The unit of memory is wrong in Table 1. Should be GB. 10. Performance evaluation- must have confusion matrix. 11. It is suggested to have ROC curve for performance evaluation. 12. References are relevant and mostly up-to-date.Author Response
Thank you very much for your kind suggestions.
We has used a paid editing service of English.
Please refer to the attachment or the following for detailed modification comments and results.
Point 1: Abstract- It is recommended to have 5 keywords.
Response 1: Keyword Fast Segmentation has been added, and the new manuscript has five keywords in line 26.
Point 2: It is recommended to highlight your improvement/modification of the existing deep learning segmentation technique of Yolo v7.
Response 2: The improvement has been added in lines 68-79.
Point 3: Introduction- Abbreviation of DBH. Must include the full abbreviation at the first time you write it. Please recheck the other abbreviations through out the manuscript..
Response 3: DBH has added full abbreviation at the first time. Six similar problems have been detected and all have been modified.
Point 4: Figure 1 and its statements are not appropriate to be included in chapter 1. It is recommended to move them into chapter 2.
Response 4: Figure 1 and its statements has moved into chapter 2.7.
Point 5: The introduction chapter is not strong enough. Must be improved.
Response 5: The introduction chapter is improved in lines 43-89.
Point 6: Must include the contribution of your study in chapter 1.
Response 6: The contribution had included in chapter 1 at lines 68-89.
Point 7: Must include the novelty of your study.
Response 7: The novelty had included in chapter 1 at lines 56-66.
Point 8: It is not necessary to write "About..." as stated in chapter 2.6, 3, 3.3 and so on. Please delete them. Recheck through out the manuscript.
Response 8: The word "About" as stated in chapter 2.6, 3, 3.3 has deleted, other chapters are not found.
Point 9: The unit of memory is wrong in Table 1. Should be GB.
Response 9: The unit of memory has been modified to "GB" below line 234.
Point 10: Performance evaluation- must have confusion matrix.
Response 10: ROC is one of an indicator with the fusion matrix. ROC curve had been increased to Figure 6 in line 326.
Point 11: It is suggested to have ROC curve for performance evaluation.
Response 11: ROC curve had beenincreased to Figure 6 in line 326.
Point 12: References are relevant and mostly up-to-date.
Response 12: Two references have been added, and the others remain unchanged.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The segmentation method to outline the canopy of trees seems well posed.
However, in my opinion, it would be relevant to investigate the response of the method in different conditions of the tree's canopy, with or without leaves. So I invite the authors to consider trees also in winter to test the method.
For what concerns the word "arbor", the dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbor tells the following: arbor is a shelter of vines or branches or of latticework covered with climbing shrubs or vines. So please consider very carefully the use of the term "arbor" in title and text of the manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your kind suggestions.
We has used a paid editing service of English.
Please refer to the attachment or the following for detailed modification comments and results.
Point 1: The segmentation method to outline the canopy of trees seems well posed.However, in my opinion, it would be relevant to investigate the response of the method in different conditions of the tree's canopy, with or without leaves. So I invite the authors to consider trees also in winter to test the method.
Response 1: Considering trees in winter to test the segmentation method is a good idea. The experimental images collection and the others complex processes need more than 10 days. We will consider trees in winter to test the segmentation method next time.
Point 2: For what concerns the word "arbor", the dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbor tells the following: arbor is a shelter of vines or branches or of latticework covered with climbing shrubs or vines. So please consider very carefully the use of the term "arbor" in title and text of the manuscript.
Response 2: The word "arbor" has been replaced by "tree", which is more general and easy to understand.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- Some pros and cons of Yolo v7 have to be presented in section 2.2.
- Section 3 should be renamed to Experiments
- Some related papers about Yolo and it's applications whould be discussed:
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2682921
https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/7918165
https://doi.org/10.1109/DASA53625.2021.9682306
- Table 2 must change 1280*1280 to 1280x1280 (multiplication symbol)
- The experiment does not present well. It's difficult to understand the contribution.
- More images of the dataset need to be illustrated in section 3.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your kind suggestions.
We has used a paid editing service of English.
Please refer to the attachment or the following for detailed modification comments and results.
Point 1: Some pros and cons of Yolo v7 have to be presented in section 2.2.
Response 1: The Main pros and cons of Yolo v7 had been presented in section 2.2 in lines 114-127.
Point 2: Section 3 should be renamed to Experiments.
Response 2: Section 3 had been renamed to Experiments.
Point 3: Some related papers about Yolo and it's applications whould be discussed.
Response 3: Two references had been added with references 7 and 8.
Point 4: Table 2 must change 1280*1280 to 1280x1280 (multiplication symbol).
Response 4: Table 2 had been changed 1280*1280 to 1280x1280.
Point 5: The experiment does not present well. It's difficult to understand the contribution.
Response 5: More images of the dataset had been illustrated in Figure 7, the ROC curve had been increased in Figure 6, and the novelty and the contribution had increased in chapter 1.
Point 6: More images of the dataset need to be illustrated in section 3.
Response 6: Figure 7’s 9 images (original 3 images) of the dataset had been illustrated in section 3.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have properly considered my observationss.
I suggest to accept the manuscript in the present layout.
Reviewer 3 Report
The major revision is quite satisfied. I think it is ready for publication after a minor grammar check.
