Forest Tree Species Diversity Mapping Using ICESat-2/ATLAS with GF-1/PMS Imagery
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract: Please write the correct notation for r squire R2 .
Figure 2. Please remove ICESat-2 footprints and data outside the study area coverage.
The rest of the article's findings are enough to explain the methods. However, the conclusions section requires revision to add more details regarding the present study.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment.
Thank you very much for your hard work, carefully reviewing the manuscript and providing valuable revisions! According to your comments, I have answered your questions one by one, and revised or improved the manuscript accordingly.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is devoted to the tree species mapping problem. The authors suggest using synergy of the spectral satellite and vertical LIDAR data. This problem is relevant, and the authors show interesting results, but the manuscript needs to be improved.
1. The introduction is a bit short and does not include a review of similar studies. For example, this paper (https://doi.org/10.1080/15481603.2022.2115599) also describes the joint use of spectral and lidar data for forest monitoring. I think you can find more examples of similar studies.
2. Show in the introduction the need to combine vertical and horizontal information, indicating the advantages and disadvantages of each type.
3. Subsection 2.3.1: Describe the assumptions and limitations of using LIDAR data when the existing values cover only a small part of the study area (Figure 2, it can be seen that there is almost no vertical data in low altitude areas).
4. Subsection 2.4.1: Add a description of the parameters: multispectral band first principal component (MSS_PC1), minimum noise separation feature, eight texture feature variables.
4. Figure 9: increase map legend, letters are too small.
5. The References must be fully edited in accordance with the requirements of the publisher (there are incomplete references - without city, publisher and pages; incorrect caps lock, etc.)
Please proofread the manuscript carefully, it contains many minor typographical errors. For example,
Line 34-35: duplication of the word "management"
Line 69: full stop after brackets with reference inside a sentence
Subsection 2.1: skipped dash in the altitude value
Subsection 2.1: Latin species names should be written in italics.
Line 103 and repeated below: “20m20m” instead of “20x20 m”
Line 147-148 “After the ICESat-2/ATLA data collection to denoise and classify the photon data in the study area again” - sentence is incoherent.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment.
Thank you very much for your hard work, carefully reviewing the manuscript and providing valuable revisions! According to your comments, I have answered your questions one by one, and revised or improved the manuscript accordingly.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
All of my comments have been resolved. Thanks to the authors for the excellent work!
