The Relationship between Breast Height Form Factor and Form Quotient of Liquidambar formosana in the Eastern Part of Taiwan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The comments are on file. Please download it.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Specific comments & Author's Reply

P1, Title: Why did the title use the plural for the “form factor” when only one type of it was included in the paper.
A: Form factors in the manuscript have been corrected to form factor. Thanks for the suggestion.

P1, Introduction, L1-2: The volume of wood in an individual stand is required for short- and medium-term forest management planning. Local carbon sequestration is less important. Please consider supplementing the issue described.
A: The content of "Local carbon sequestration" has been deleted. Thanks for the suggestion.

P1, Introduction, L7-8: Maybe instead of “by calculating the volume of wood” it would be better to write “by summing up the volumes of all the trees”
A: It has been improved. Thanks for the suggestion.

P1, Introduction, L9-10: This is a repetition of previous content, rather remove.
A: Some texts have been removed. Thanks for the suggestion.

P2, L2: 0.45 for all tree species?
A: The author has added a description of L. 46 - 51. Thanks for the suggestion.

P2, L3-4: Unnecessary statement
A: The author has added a description of L. 46 - 51. Thanks for the suggestion.

P2, L5-8: Instead of writing about the unspecified shape and form of tree, please write about the concept and history of the development of the form factor. Maybe it would be better to write the “shape of the tree trunk” instead of “tree form” or “tree shape”.
A. The author has made changes in L. 53-54. Thanks for the suggestion.

P2, L11: Instead of “reflect changes in shape” it would be better to “reflect differences in the shape of tree trunks”
A. The author has made changes in L. 59-60. Thanks for the suggestion.

P2, L16: Please explain what “adjusted equations” means.
A: This is quoted from the reference, so we have kept the original text.

P2, L19: “diameter of the trunk at mid-length between top and breast height” instead of “diameter of trunk from the top of the tree to the DBH one-half point”
A: The author has made changes in L. 68. Thanks for the suggestion.

P2, L24-32: A lot of vague information duplicating already presented facts, in addition the use of new terms (“adjusted equations “, “volumetric function”, “form function”) creates an opaque description of forest inventory and methods of determining the stem volume. Please remove or reword this.
A: This is quoted from the reference (in L. 73-78), so we have kept the original text.

P2, L29-32: I completely don’t understand what the authors were trying to communicate in that last paragraph.
A: The author has made changes in L. 79-82. Thanks for the suggestion.

P2, L36-37: I disagree that it is more accurate than direct measurement, please read the paper: Vaaja, M. T., Virtanen, J.-P., Kurkela, M., Lehtola, V., Hyyppä, J., and Hyyppä, H.: THE EFFECT OF WIND ON TREE STEM PARAMETER ESTIMATION USING TERRESTRIAL LASER SCANNING, ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., III-8, 117–122, https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-annals-III-8-117-2016, 2016.

A: The swing of the tree due to the wind will indeed affect the data collection of TLS. Therefore, we strictly require that it should be carried out in a light breeze (wind speed ≤ 3.3 m/s) or a more stable climate environment. At the same time, choosing the time when the leaves fall (The leaves are almost completely dropped) can also get a more complete image of the trunk and branches. Thanks for the suggestion, the author has made changes in L. 118-124.

P2, L37-39: Rather, this should be developed and transferred to the methodology.
A: It has been changed to the methodology. Thanks for the suggestion.

P2, L43: I understand that no such study has been conducted to date? Please check the sentence.
A: The author has made changes in L. 92-93. Thanks for the suggestion.

P3, Figure 1: The text on the included climatograph is not readable. Please correct.
A: Figure 1 has been modified. Thanks for the suggestion.

P3, S2.2, L2: “number of plots” or “number of trees”?
A: The author has made changes in L. 113-117. Thanks for the suggestion.

P3, S2.2, L8-11: Please provide specific data on where the trunk was measured, how many of these measurements were taken on each tree, whether they were taken automatically or supervised, how the volume was calculated, by what formula. Were the measurements made directly on the point cloud or on a geometric model fitted into it? Please complete the description.
A: The author has made revisions in L. 119-132. Thanks for the suggestion.

P3, S2.2, L12-21: The paragraph needs to be cleaned up and shortened. Contains a lot of irrelevant and repetitive information. It would be better to complete the description of how and what form factor was calculated and how and what form quotient was used.
A: The author has made revisions in L. 113-132. Thanks for the suggestion.

P3, S2.2, L22-26: Unfortunately, but again I feel that this is a repetition of previous information. Please reword this and the previous paragraphs.
A: The author has made revisions in L. 113-132. Thanks for the suggestion.

P4, L1: What model? There has been no information about any model so far.
A: The author has made revisions in L. 113-132. Thanks for the suggestion.

P4, L3: The title does not match the content of the chapter. First, rather, the form factor is calculated, and second, it is not calculated but rather estimated.
A. The author has made revisions in L. 133 of the manuscript. Thanks for the suggestion.

P4, L6: These are not equations for conversion, well except maybe equation 1, but rather for prediction. Equations 2, 3, and 4 are regression models. Given this, please describe what method was used to estimate the parameters, how the significance and validity of the regression models were assessed.
A. The authors have made revisions in lines 134-138, and 144-147 of the manuscript. Thanks for the suggestion.

P4, L9: V1.3 is not a tree volume!
A. The author has made revisions in L. 141-142 of the manuscript. Thanks for the suggestion.

P4, L14-21: This paragraph does not link to the preceding and following content.???
A. The author has made revisions in L. 151-162 of the manuscript. Thanks for the suggestion.

P5, L1-4: How were the learning and validation data sets used to calculate the statistics?
A. The author has made revisions in L. 144-147 of the manuscript. Thanks for the suggestion.

P5, S3.1 The title does not match the content of the chapter. The chapter focuses on the characteristics of the measured trees, primarily the form factor and the form quotient.
A. The author has made revisions in L. 164 of the manuscript. Thanks for the suggestion.

P5, S3.1, L1-6: This is an unnecessary description concerning partly the methodology and secondly listing features that are not described i.e. "standing timber position". Please rather remove it.
A. The author has made revisions in L. 165-166 of the manuscript. Thanks for the suggestion.

P5, Table 1: Instead of a table, a much better way to present the distributions of the analyzed characteristics would be to use box plots. A. Added Box plot in Figure 3. Thanks for the suggestion.

P6, Figure 3: The figure shows the relationship between the form factor and the form quotient, in addition linear model that was not described in the methodology are presented. The presented linear model could be considered as a fifth method for predicting the form factor from the form quotient. Again, I note that it could be very interesting for this work to focus on the differences between the form factor and form quotient relationships for stands with different thinning intensities.
A. To fit the form factor and the form quotient model using linear regression or nonlinear regression, we can refer to studies such as Gu Haibo et al. (2019) Based on ground-based laser scanning poplar stem shape analysis (in Chinese), and 6 model were compared.
This study was conducted because we wanted to know how well the earlier proposed models performed. Thanks for this suggestion.

P6, S3.2 Title needs to be corrected.
A. The author has made revisions in L. 183 of the manuscript. Thanks for the suggestion.

P7, Table 3: Which method does “Quotient Conversion” refer to? It would be interesting to show all 4 methods.
A. The authors have revised L. 191-194 of the manuscript, and the conversion for the 4 equation have been supplemented in Table 3. Thanks for the suggestion.

P7, Figure 4: Presenting error magnitudes as a function of “Tree ID” makes little sense. It is better to present the error distributions in box plots, then you can compare them for different methods and different thinning intensities. Currently nothing can be seen in these graphs. Alternatively, you can place the dbh of the tree on the abscissa and analyze these relationships.
A. Figure 4 has been modified. Thanks for the suggestion.

P8, S4.1 The title is too long and not clear.
A. The author has made revisions in L. 221 of the manuscript. Thanks for the suggestion.

P8, S4.1, L1-6: Since the form factor is not a measure of stem shape, why was the conclusion drawn that thinning changed stem shape? For all paragraph – Using an unspecified term like "shape" leads to constant logical mistakes and contradictions in the discussion. Simply focus on the effect of different growth conditions on the form factor and form quotient.
A. The author has made revisions in L. 222-257 of the manuscript. Thanks for the suggestion.

P9, S4.2 The title is too long and not clear
A. The author has made revisions in L. 264 of the manuscript. Thanks for the suggestion.

P9, S4.2, L1-21: Instead of a discussion, the results of the work are presented. Unsurprisingly, they are presented more interestingly than in the “Results” chapter.
A. Lines 265-290 of the manuscript have been revised by the authors, which we hope will help discuss the properties of the equation and the differences in performance in this study. Thanks for the suggestion.

P9, S4.2, L28-35: As before, the results are described again. I honestly don't know what the authors tested, in the methodology this part is not very well documented. I don't understand this statement e.g. "the form factors of the LT area differed significantly from the TLS volume (p < 0.05), while the others did not differ significantly."
A. Lines 265-290 of the manuscript have been revised by the authors, which we hope will help discuss the properties of the equation and the differences in performance in this study. Thanks for the suggestion.

P9, C5, L1-5: I am surprised by the statements, first "reduce the calculation error of individual tree volumes" and in Figure 4 we see errors as high as 40%, second "assumption that there will be no increase in fieldwork" after all, the form quotient must be estimated - this takes time and is not always possible due to field conditions (trunk visibility).
A. The conclusion in the manuscript has been revised and the content rearranged as lines 292-301. Thanks for the suggestion.

P9, C5, L6: The study did not investigate the dependence of the form factor on tree dbh, nor the influence of dbh on the size of volume estimation errors. The conclusion does not result from the presented research.
A. The conclusion in the manuscript has been revised and the content rearranged as lines 292-301. Thanks for the suggestion.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript shows a substantial improvement with respect to the initial version presented, in the article a better order is appreciated in the content of the sections and several aspects previously indicated have been clarified and complemented. However, the improvement in terms of the number of references was minimal with respect to the initial version, and since the lines of the paper were not numbered, it was difficult to follow all the changes made. Despite the above, there is a better quality manuscript.

In the text of the manuscript, some minimum aspects that should be improved are indicated.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have included the comments in the file. Please download the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Specific comments & Author's Reply

L131: V is not the volume of the cylinder, gi and gi+1 are different. In ddition, the volume of the cylinder is a component of the definition of the form factor and the terms used here are misleading. The Smalian’s formula used can be written, for example, like this:

136. The author has made changes in line 136. Thanks for the suggestion.

L135: The authors begin the sentence with a desire to study the relationship between the form factor and the form quotient. But so far they have not given a definition of these terms. In my opinion, the previous chapter (2.2.) should be supplemented by providing definitions of both concepts and how to calculate them from TLS data. Also, Figure 2 should be moved to Chapter 2.2.
A. Figure 2 has been moved to line 68, and lines 69-72 add definitions. Thanks for the suggestion.

L140: instead “mode parameters” please use “regression parameters”. Please provide details of what method was used to calculate the values of these parameters. How their statistical significance was tested.
A. The author has corrected it in line 146, and the description of the statistical method in lines 146-147. Thanks for the suggestion.

L141: V is the volume of the trunk calculated by Huber's formula, please specify.
A. The author has corrected it in line 148. Thanks for the suggestion.

L145: The accuracy of the model can be verified, evaluated, it cannot be assured.
A. The author has corrected it in line 151. Thanks for the suggestion.

L151: yi is a form factor calculated from TLS data, please specify.
A. The author has corrected it in line 155. Thanks for the suggestion.

L152-159: The issue of the accuracy of volume determination based on the developed methods should be presented in a separate subsection.
A. The author has made revisions in line 157-170 of the manuscript. Thanks for the suggestion.

L166: Maybe a title like this “Distributions of form factor and form quotient”

172. The author has corrected it in line 172. Thanks for the suggestion.

L167: They were calculated, not estimated

173. The author has corrected it in line 173. Thanks for the suggestion.

L182: Figure 3. Please add box plots to the right and below the scatter plot. On the right, two box plots showing the F1.3 marginal distribution for higher and lower density plantations. Also below, two box plots showing the Qn arginal distribution for plantations with higher and lower densities. In the present situation, the box plots and scatter plot are redundant. Moreover, since the authors decided not to include the linear model in the set of models tested, they should also remove it from the scatter plot. This model is not mentioned throughout the text.

183. This manuscript has removed Table 1 and Figure 3 and replaced it with Box plot. The modified content is in lines 172 to 183. Thanks for the suggestion.

L183: Please use the name "normal form quotient" consistently throughout the Text

182. The author has corrected it in line 182. Thanks for the suggestion.

L185: Maybe a title like this “Form factor estimation errors” Please write a few sentences summarizing the values presented in Table 2. The text in lines 186-188 is insufficient. What is stated, what is implied by these numbers?

A.The author has corrected it in line 184, and supplemented the content of lines 185 to 195, hoping that this will help readers understand the information. Thanks for the suggestion.

L193: From lines 152-159 it is not clear exactly what methods will be taken into account in determining the volume, but from the description there it can be guessed that all the methods listed in section 2.3. There is some inconsistency here, because in section 3.3 only one method is described and, in addition, one about which little is written.

1. The authors have made revisions in line 161, 162, and 203 - 205 of the manuscript. Thanks for the suggestion.

L197-200: Please rephrase this

1. The author has made revisions in line 203-205 of the manuscript. Thanks for the suggestion.

L212: Unfortunately, there are no interesting results in this figure, better remove it!

1. The authors have made revisions in Figure 4, in lines 216-220 of the manuscript. Thanks for the suggestion.

L266: I think it's the form factor, not the quotient
A. The author has corrected it in line 268. Thanks for the suggestion.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents a topic of interest in sustainable forest management, such as the calculation of timber stocks of standing trees, basic information in forest management plans. The authors address the analysis of form factor and form quotient, both at breast height, under different density conditions of Liquidambar formosana plantations in a region of Taiwan. For this, they use a non-destructive terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) system, which has the potential to replace the conventional method for calculating these tree parameters. However, there are points for improvement that must be addressed to better support some ideas and increase the quality of the manuscript.

Manuscript Improvement Points:

Lines 35-36: It should be noted first that volume calculation is important within forest management plans and then mention what is related to sequester carbon, given that the first topic is one of the most important justifications in this research, in addition, relevant citations must be added.

Line 44: Mention the form factor abbreviation.

Line 49: Provide a citation at the end of the sentence.

Line 52: Change the term “experimental regression formula” and use a more conventional term, for this it is suggested to consult the book by Burkhart and Tomé (2012) “Modeling Forest Trees and Stands”.

Line 66: Check if the abbreviation D_DBH is correct or was defined before.

Lines 68-71: Both the text and the figure should go into the materials and methods section, not in the introduction.

Line 74: Provide references at the end of the sentence.

Line 86: Explain or clarify what are these artificial errors? And provide references at the end of the sentence.

Line 90: Provide references at the end of the sentence.

Lines 90-92: In terms of time and cost, how efficient is the method? Please explain briefly.

Line 95: Provide references at the end of the sentence.

Lines 102-108. It is suggested to move it to the results and discussion section.

Line 117: Provide a citation at the end of the sentence.

Figure 2 is too small and when enlarging the screen, the resolution is lost, please improve it.

Line 126: change trees/ha to trees·ha⁻¹, do the same throughout the article.

Lines 127-128: Clearly mention the experimental design used.

Lines 128-129: Indicate the make and model of the instrument used.

Lines 139-140: Please clarify the following: “In addition, the stumpage should be selected”.

Lines 149-155: It is suggested to move the paragraph to the results and discussion section.

Lines 157-158: The selection of 93 individual tree point clouds was already mentioned in lines 129-130.

Lines 162-168: Standardize the notation used (according to figure 1), both uppercase and lowercase letters are used in the formulas. Also, verify that all the variables are defined, for example: V, V_1.3, and that the mentioned parameters are present in the formulas, r does not appear. Verify that the notation is consistent throughout the manuscript.

Lines 172-173: Add the registered trademark symbol to the software used.

In table 1 there are points that are not clear, what is HT³ and LT³? And only 3 appear at the foot of the table, please clarify.

Line 211: Provide references at the end of the sentence.

Line 219: Provide references at the end of the sentence

Line 264: Provide references at the end of the sentence.

Line 272: Improve the title of table 2, it is not clear “Two remaining numbers per hectare”.

Line 291: Provide references at the end of the sentence.

Lines 294-295: Regarding the t-test, this should be mentioned in the materials and methods, please provide references.

Lines 311: 313: It is methodology, please move to where it corresponds and provide references.

Lines 323-325: The information that appears on these lines is mentioned in table 4, it is not necessary to repeat it, this applies to all the tables of the manuscript, verify that the information is not repeated verbatim.

Lines 343-348: Everything that is mentioned in these lines has already been addressed in some way, so it is unnecessary to emphasize it as part of the conclusions.

Line 349 onwards: It is not necessary to list the conclusions, I suggest that the indicators move to the results and discussion section, and the conclusion focuses only on the research findings. That is, the benefits of the TLS method in the estimation of the form factor and form quotient are highlighted, in terms of precision and superiority over conventional methods, in addition to operability, time and cost in the application.

Author Response

Lines 35-36: It should be noted first that volume calculation is important within forest management plans and then mention what is related to sequester carbon, given that the first topic is one of the most important justifications in this research, in addition, relevant citations must be added.

RESPONSE: Thanks for the suggestion, the text has been edited

Line 44: Mention the form factor abbreviation.

RESPONSE: In the original manuscript, the form factor in this paragraph only describes a certain conversion parameter commonly used in calculating the volume of the tree, and it has been supplemented that "For example, 0.45 is commonly used in Taiwan to represent the breast height form factor", such as L.46 -47.

Line 49: Provide a citation at the end of the sentence.

RESPONSE: Text has been edited as in L.49-53.

Line 52: Change the term “experimental regression formula” and use a more conventional term, for this it is suggested to consult the book by Burkhart and Tomé (2012) “Modeling Forest Trees and Stands”.

RESPONSE: The experimental regression formula was modified to an empirical equation.

Line 66: Check if the abbreviation DDBH is correct or was defined before.

RESPONSE: Removed, modified to DBH.

Lines 68-71: Both the text and the figure should go into the materials and methods section, not in the introduction.

RESPONSE: The text has been revised, as in L.150-151.

Line 74: Provide references at the end of the sentence.

RESPONSE: In the original manuscript, L.73-76 were compiled from 3 documents, and the text has been revised, as in L.69-74.

Line 86: Explain or clarify what are these artificial errors? And provide references at the end of the sentence.

RESPONSE: The text has been revised, as in L.78-82.

Line 90: Provide references at the end of the sentence.

RESPONSE: In the manuscript, L.89-92 has been removed. The revised text was in L.78-82.

Lines 90-92: In terms of time and cost, how efficient is the method? Please explain briefly.

RESPONSE: In the manuscript, L.89-92 has been removed. The revised text was in L.78-82.

Line 95: Provide references at the end of the sentence.

RESPONSE: In the manuscript, L.95 has been removed. The revised text was in L.88-92.

Lines 102-108. It is suggested to move it to the results and discussion section.

RESPONSE: In the manuscript, L.102-108 has been removed. The revised text was in L.173-178.

Line 117: Provide a citation at the end of the sentence.

RESPONSE: The climate data are collected and analyzed by themselves, no literature was cited, and the text content has been modified, such as L. 98-102.

Figure 2 is too small and when enlarging the screen, the resolution is lost, please improve it.

RESPONSE: Already edited.

Line 126: change trees/ha to trees·ha−1, do the same throughout the article.

RESPONSE: Already edited.

Lines 127-128: Clearly mention the experimental design used.

RESPONSE: Modified as in L. 109-137.

Lines 128-129: Indicate the make and model of the instrument used.

RESPONSE: Modified as in L. 109-137.

Lines 139-140: Please clarify the following: “In addition, the stumpage should be selected”.

RESPONSE: Modified to "tree trunk".

Lines 149-155: It is suggested to move the paragraph to the results and discussion section.

RESPONSE: Modified as in L. 213-216.

Lines 157-158: The selection of 93 individual tree point clouds was already mentioned in lines 129-130.

RESPONSE: Modified as in L. 120-130.

Lines 162-168: Standardize the notation used (according to figure 1), both uppercase and lowercase letters are used in the formulas. Also, verify that all the variables are defined, for example: V, V1.3, and that the mentioned parameters are present in the formulas, r does not appear. Verify that the notation is consistent throughout the manuscript.

RESPONSE: "r" does not appear in this report and has been removed. D1.3 was changed to DBH. The signs of equations (1) to (4) have been corrected.

Lines 172-173: Add the registered trademark symbol to the software used.

RESPONSE: Modified as in L. 61-62.

In table 1 there are points that are not clear, what is HT3 and LT3? And only 3 appear at the foot of the table, please clarify.

RESPONSE: Modified as in Table 1.

Line 211: Provide references at the end of the sentence.

RESPONSE: Modified as in L. 221-224.

Line 219: Provide references at the end of the sentence.

RESPONSE: Modified as in L. 229-231.

Line 264: Provide references at the end of the sentence.

RESPONSE: Modified as in L. 250-260.

Line 272: Improve the title of table 2, it is not clear “Two remaining numbers per hectare”.

RESPONSE: Modified as in Table 2.

Line 291: Provide references at the end of the sentence.

RESPONSE: The content of the manuscript has been revised in L.276.

Lines 294-295: Regarding the t-test, this should be mentioned in the materials and methods, please provide references.

RESPONSE: Modified as in L. 155-163.

Lines 311: 313: It is methodology, please move to where it corresponds and provide references.

RESPONSE: Modified as in L. 155-163.

Lines 323-325: The information that appears on these lines is mentioned in table 4, it is not necessary to repeat it, this applies to all the tables of the manuscript, verify that the information is not repeated verbatim.

RESPONSE: Removed, thanks for the suggestion.

Lines 343-348: Everything that is mentioned in these lines has already been addressed in some way, so it is unnecessary to emphasize it as part of the conclusions.

RESPONSE: Removed, thanks for the suggestion.

Line 349 onwards: It is not necessary to list the conclusions, I suggest that the indicators move to the results and discussion section, and the conclusion focuses only on the research findings. That is, the benefits of the TLS method in the estimation of the form factor and form quotient are highlighted, in terms of precision and superiority over conventional methods, in addition to operability, time and cost in the application.

RESPONSE: Removed the original 2nd conclusion and kept the remaining 3 conclusions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please download the attached review file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

L41: What do the authors mean when they write about calculating the volume of wood?

RESPONSE: In the manuscript, L.41-50 have been removed. The revised text was in L.41-48.

L42-47: Paragraph requires an ordering of thoughts, i.e., the tasks and different stages of the entire forest inventory process must be clearly distinguished. You should also indicate to which stage the issue described in the paper relates.

RESPONSE: In the manuscript, L.41-50 have been removed. The revised text was in L.41-48.

L49-50: Two sentences are incomprehensible to me.

RESPONSE: In the manuscript, L.41-50 have been removed. The revised text was in L.41-48.

L51-54: Like above, I don't know what data and what experimental regression formula they have in mind. Please explain this in detail.

RESPONSE: In the manuscript, L.51-57 have been removed. The revised text was in L.49-55.

L54-57: In practice, form factors are determined only indirectly by empirical equations or tables. Similarly, form quotients serve as explanatory variables in empirical equations to determine the form factor indirectly. In either case, the form factor must be determined directly by measuring the volume of the stem. Furthermore, the use of form quotients to predict form factors comes with an additional cost in the inventory, which should not be overlooked. Please sort out the logic of the sentences.

RESPONSE: In the manuscript, L.51-57 have been removed. The revised text was in L.49-55.

L60 and L68: Two definitions of form quotients and one name. Please explain.

RESPONSE: Modified as in L. 56-68.

L68: Undefined symbol F1.3.

RESPONSE: Modified as in L. 47.

L71: New name for the form quotient?

RESPONSE: In the manuscript, the original text has been deleted. Modified as in L. 56-68.

L72-75: Two consecutive sentences with identical content.

RESPONSE: Modified as in L. 69-77.

L75-88: I understand that the authors wanted to point out the disadvantages of ground-based measurements in this paragraph. Please write it more simply.

RESPONSE: Modified as in L. 78-82.

L91-92: Unfortunately, using TLS under certain atmospheric conditions can lead to incorrect measurements - it also has its limitations.

RESPONSE: If possible, please help us with some information.

L98: Please write clearly between which form quotient and which form factor the relationships were analyzed.

RESPONSE: Modified as in L.138 “2.3 Comparison of the methods for calculating the quotient”

L99-105: Please delete or move to methodology if needed.

RESPONSE: The original text has been removed.

L120: There is a lot of blank space on either side of the figure. Instead of putting thumbnails on the figure, please enlarge them and put them next to it.

RESPONSE: Already edited.

L125-128: In the introduction it would be appropriate to write a few words about this experiment, perhaps even one of the hypotheses should be linked to this experiment. The article would have been much more interesting if the density of plantations had been included in the analyses of the relationship between the form quotient and the form factor.

RESPONSE: Modified as in L. 109-119.

L130-132: This is obvious and there is no need to write it, whereas I don't see any information on how these tree elements were measured. It is necessary to complete the description with details of the measurements made on the point cloud.

RESPONSE: Modified as in L. 109-130.

L143-147: The description is very simplified, how the diameters were measured (manually, automatically, what algorithm was used), how many of these diameters were measured, at what intervals. What formula was used to calculate the volume. What if the required diameters were not visible? Was the volume of branches considered, or just the main trunk?

RESPONSE: Modified as in L. 121-133.

L148: Shouldn't there be a “form factor” instead of a “quotient”?

RESPONSE: This research tries to discuss how to use Q_n (the normal form quotient) to convert to F_1.3 (the breast height form factor), we are discuss this in L.108 and L.248, thank you.

L149-156: These sentences contain a general description of the analyzed issue, in my opinion they should be in the introduction.

RESPONSE: Original text removed, and revised in L.69-74 and L.216-217.

L157-158: Please check the quality of the English translation, e.g. “the best formula to estimate the Qn to convert it to the F1.3” or “were used to estimate the mode”

RESPONSE: Modified as in L. 120-130.

L166: In which formula is the parameter “r” used? Moreover, Qn is better called normal form quotient.

RESPONSE: "r" does not appear in this report and has been removed. Modified as in L. 146.

L176: the formula is wrong.

RESPONSE: Eq. (7) has been revised.

L181: Please check the quality of the English translation

RESPONSE: Modified as in L. 173-247.

L188-194: Why these relationships were not analyzed statistically. Even a linear regression would give an objective answer as to the strength and direction of the relationship, with the possibility of comparison between variants of stand density.

RESPONSE: The author thinks this paragraph is inappropriate and has deleted it.

L197: It would be helpful to calculate the correlation coefficient and report its value.

RESPONSE: The picture has been replaced.

L198: Conclusion without adequate justification.

RESPONSE: Modified as in L. 173-187.

L199: Inappropriate title for a table that contains much more information than indicated in the title.

RESPONSE: Modified as in L. 188-189.

L220: What do the authors mean when they write: ” indicating that the shape of the artificial forest can be improved through proper thinning”

RESPONSE: Modified as in L.224-231.

L251-252: Where do these statements come from?

RESPONSE: Modified as in L.243-247.

L253: Please check the quality of the English translation

RESPONSE: The content of “3.2 Comparison of the optimal conversion mode breast height form quotient and breast height form factor” has been modified.

L256: In the numerator of Equation 1, the actual stem volume is approximated using Huber's formula. With this assumption, the form factor is the square of the form quotient.

RESPONSE: The content of “3.2 Comparison of the optimal conversion mode breast height form quotient and breast height form factor” has been modified.

L258-259: These are not the results of this work. Please present the results you receive.

RESPONSE: The content of “3.2 Comparison of the optimal conversion mode breast height form quotient and breast height form factor” has been modified.

L263: Please indicate what this research is, without a citation it can be interpreted as the results of this work.

RESPONSE: The content of “3.2 Comparison of the optimal conversion mode breast height form quotient and breast height form factor” has been modified.

L272: Without comment, please read this title.

RESPONSE: The content of “3.2 Comparison of the optimal conversion mode breast height form quotient and breast height form factor” has been modified.

L283-284: please explain more precisely, the sentence is not clear

RESPONSE: Modified as in L.270-275.

L288: The issue of assessing the accuracy of volume estimation was not presented in the methodology, please complete

RESPONSE: Modified as in L.155-161.

L291-295: This paragraph contains content directly related to computational methodology and should be moved to the methodology chapter. Furthermore, it should be clarified what “universal form factors” and “quotient conversion” are.

RESPONSE: Paragraphs reorganized in "2.3 Comparison of the methods for calculating the quotient ".

L319: The table is unnecessary, the description in lines 323-325 is sufficient.

RESPONSE: Please agree to keep the table.

L338-341: The title of the graph is not clear, how was the relative error calculated?

RESPONSE: Modified as in L.315-317.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx