Biomass Assessment and Carbon Sequestration in Post-Fire Shrublands by Means of Sentinel-2 and Gaussian Processes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a work whose theme has a high relevance, not only scientific, but also economic and social. The approach to the research problematic is very well contextualized and the objectives to be achieved are well-defined. Although it is a topic that has already been studied by several other authors, it is quite clear where is the innovative character and the added value for the study field.

However, the authors are encouraged to improve the following aspects:

- Only 30% of the references are from the last 5 years, with none from 2022 and only 1 from 2021; the bibliographic reference [15] is undated;

- K-NN appears in the text without the complete designation;

- Section 2. Materials and Methods, should be rewritten in order to clarify what was actually done, how it was done and also justifying some options. For example:

- Why were Sentinel 2 images chosen?

- "2.2 Satellite images", were the satellite images subjected to post-processing operations? In this section nothing is mentioned in this sense and in the results something appears related to the calibration of the images. Also in this section there is a reference to Table 1, but Table 1 is not in the text;

- “2.3 Sampling method and allometric equations”, there is no link in the text between the sampling method and the allometric equation used. The use of the equation is not sufficiently explained and should have another citation to support it;

- “2.5 Sampling evaluation”, it makes more sense to rewrite the part of section 2.3 and 2.5 concerning the sampling method in the same section;

- “2.7 Data analysis”, it is written that "one subset was utilized for the result validation". How was this validation performed?

- Figure 3. shows NDVI values that are not included in the respective legend;

- "For calibration purposes and to include the maximum variability of reflectance values in the database, six plots of bare soil have been randomly selected", there were no plots of water?

- Figure 4. needs further explanation of what is being shown;

- "3.4. Application of GPR over non-burned areas" what was the purpose of this procedure?

- "GPR gives underrated values of biomass for a homogeneous mature forest of Pinus sylvestris L". Any comments?

- At the end of the paper the acronym GIS appears twice, without full designation, without context. What is the intention?

- There should be a section only for the conclusion;

- There are repeated references: [11] and [39]; [3] and [40]

Author Response

We, the authors, really appreciate the reviewer’s comments to help us improve our work. We hope to answer all her/his concerns properly and not to forget any of them. We keep waiting for any further comments and we will be pleasured to resolve any further doubt. We thank the reviewer for her/his dedication and patience.

A document with extensive information about the comments is attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

See comments inserted as globes in the original pdf manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We, the authors, really appreciate the reviewer’s comments to help us improve our work. We hope to answer all her/his concerns properly and not to forget any of them. We keep waiting for any further comments and we will be pleasured to resolve any further doubt. We thank the reviewer for her/his dedication and patience.

A document with extensive information is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Well done!
The suggestions for improving the article were mostly included in the second version of the text, missing at this stage minor corrections.
Please see the attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

After taking in consideration your previous comments we find our text clearer and more interesting. Thank you so much for your support and dedication. We appreciate all your comments. We really hope that this research was of your interest.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

See comments directly in the pdf manuscript

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

After taking in consideration your previous comments we find our text clearer and more interesting. Thank you so much for your support and dedication. We really appreciate all your comments and we really hope that this research was of your interest.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx