Improved Tree Segmentation Algorithm Based on Backpack-LiDAR Point Cloud

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title:  It covers the paper. 

Abstract: It is sufficient and detail. However, PCS, CSP and RMSEs should explain here instead of abbreviations.

Key words: All key words are taken from title of the paper. So, they should be re-considered by the Authors.

Introduction: It is detailed by related 21 references.

Materials and Methods: It is sufficient and detail by 6 sub-title, figure and equations.

Results: Results are related to paper’s findings. They are supported by Table and Figures.

Discussion: Results of the paper are discussed by published papers.

Conclusions: They are extracted results of the paper.

 

References and Figures: All references and figures should be kept in the paper.

The paper addressed for using of LiDAR point cloud to estimate individual tree segmentation based on tree structural parameters by algorithms and hierarchical strategy. Using of LiDAR is technological and modern practice in forestry. It is clear that results of the paper will valuable contributions to future studies.

 

The paper is original and relevant to the field.

The paper has contributive and complements findings to early studies.

the tables and figures are well designed. All Table and Figures are related to the paper. They should be kept in the paper.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The improvement of the tree segmentation algorithm based on backpack LiDAR point clouds is an original and relevant topic in the field of remote sensing applications in forestry.

This manuscript contributes to the subject area by enhancing a previously published algorithm for 'tree segmentation,' specifically targeting the segmentation of tree crowns.

However, the abstract of this manuscript lacks clarity and does not effectively summarize the methodology; more than 70% of the abstract focuses on results.

Additionally, the abbreviations PCS and CSP, which appear in the abstract, should be explicitly mentioned.

The manuscript is scientifically sound and well-designed to test the hypothesis, with reproducible results based on the details provided in the methods section.

To enhance the manuscript, minor modifications are suggested, and questions should be addressed, such as:

1.     specifying the total area of the study area and providing details on the total number of scanned point clouds and their density before and after downsampling.

2.     Citations for the SQR and CSF equations should be added. Furthermore,

3.     the manuscript could benefit from inserting the location of the tested plots on the satellite image of Ximazhuang Park.

4.     While Figure 3 appears to show the point cloud of the entire study area, clarification of this in the text is recommended.

 

The figures overall are appropriate and effectively depict the data, but Figure 8 needs clarification and modification for better clarity. Conclusively, the conclusions align well with the evidence and arguments presented, effectively addressing the main question of the manuscript. The references cited are both recent and appropriate.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The  paper: Improved Tree Segmentation Algorithm Based On Backpack- 2 LiDAR Point Cloud is  included important issues, but needs some improvments:

- key words, could not  be the same as words in title

- abstract is not interesting for reader, please change it. It should be add here more information about results,

- please formulate hypothesis, and after that improve the discussion

- The purpose is not clear for reader, please change it.

- discussion should be strictly connected with discussion

- fig. 8 needs corrections, all words, numbers are too small.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I accapted this version of paper.