Tree Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) Estimation Using an iPad Pro LiDAR Scanner: A Case Study in Boreal Forests, Ontario, Canada
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author,
The study title is original and the literature is used in accordance with the study. Some shortcomings are noted below.
Best Wishes.
What is the main question addressed by the research? What gap in the literature will this study contribute to?
Has the suitability of the data set been checked for PCA analysis?
How to introduce the uncertainty of the model?
It should be revealed as a result of PCA analysis
The regression equation and R2 should be added to Figure 3
Opportunities and limitations use of study in the conclusion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. This is the correct response.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Page 2, line 50, how the influencing factors are judged and whether there are other influencing factors, suggest the author to explain or cite related papers.
2. As shown in Figure 1, there is a lot of difference in the number of data samples, for example, MX 61-80 is only about one-tenth of BRD 20-40. The authors can supplement part of the data to preserve the balance between the various types, which can make the experimental results more credible.
3. How the labels of the point cloud data are generated is not mentioned in the article.
4. in section 2.3, why is it necessary to process the point cloud data?
5. On page 5, line 159, why the Kruskal-Wallis tests is used, it is suggested that the authors explain it or cite related papers.
6. Page 5, line 164, why is the Dunn-Bonferroni post-hoc test used? It is recommended that the author explain this or cite a relevant paper.
7. There is no visualization of the experimental results in the article. It is suggested to add some visualization of the result graphs.
8. The experiments were only conducted on self-constructed data, is there a public dataset? If so, it is suggested that the authors add corresponding experiments on public datasets to prove the conclusions mentioned in the article.
9. Some of the analysis in the discussion is suggested to be moved to the corresponding experimental part, so as to be more intuitive.
10. the discussion and conclusion do not point out the weaknesses of the paper.
11. Regarding the presentation, pictures, experiments and some simulation methods, the authors can refer to and cite the following articles:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jia.2023.11.037
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease start with a problem statement in the abstract.
The introduction section is very short. Authors should better investigate and analyze the recent literature on DBH estimation by providing information on locations, accuracy values, and limitations. This section has to be extended and the literature gap they are filling should be better addressed.
What are the significant differences from authors' previous study? Why there is need to have a follow-up study should be precisely explained.
Provide some visual examples of your LiDAR data.
Provide more information on structural attributes (Line 71).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this study, Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) values ​​of trees were estimated using the iPad Pro Lidar sensor. Although the work is generally well constructed, it is particularly weak in terms of novelty. It was prepared as an application. It lacks theoretical background. My other opinions are below.
What is the novelty of the work? More specific explanations should be made on this subject in the Introduction. Does using iPad Pro LiDAR add novelty to work?
The literature review is incomplete. I recommend an extensive literature search that includes current studies. The novelty of the study should be revealed through this literature review.
“The point clouds were projected” What exactly was done with This process?
Can machine learning approaches be used instead of unsupervised DBSCAN to determine trees? At least one discussion on this topic should be added.
Almost none of the methods used have a mathematical explanation. Additionally, it is not stated why filtering and clustering algorithms are preferred.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNew technologies emerging in forestry make it possible to obtain a lot of information about various parameters of individual trees or entire stands. One possibility in this regard is to determine the tree diameter at breast height.
The article is quite interesting. It refers to the use of the iPad 2 Pro LiDAR Scanner when determining BDH. I have no major methodological comments on the article. Before its publication, I would suggest extending the Introduction to present other possibilities of using this device in forestry sector, e.g. when measuring the volume of wood raw material.
In part of the Discussion, the Authors referred to the presented hypotheses. In my opinion this text should be included in the Results chapter (lines 255-284). The discussion should be characterized by a high degree of generalization of analyzed issues.
Please check all the units, as in many places there is no space between number and unit (e.g. line 15 - instead of “4cm” it should be written “4 cm”; and others).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author responded to the specified corrections appropriately and made additions.
It is appropriate to publish it in this form.
Best Wishes...
Author Response
Thank you for the kind response.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept
Author Response
Thank you for the kind response.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease improve the quality of Figure 1.
you should switch the x and y axis for Figure 4. Error should be on vertical axis and number of trees on horizontal axis.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you to the authors for the revisions. The manuscript is acceptable for publication in its current form.
Author Response
Thank you for the kind response.
