Forest Canopy Fuel Loads Mapping Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle High-Resolution Red, Green, Blue and Multispectral Imagery

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Generally the paper is well written and well structured. I have only some minor comments. 

The introduction provides a comprehensive overview of the study subject, highlighting the significance of forest fires, exploring various types of wildfires, and addressing the estimation of canopy fuel loads. However, further emphasis on the limitations of field-based methods would significantly strengthen the study's impact.

A short paragraph in the last part of the introduction is needed to summarize the state of the art, highlight the research novelty, and make a connection between previous studies and the current objectives.

The quality of Figure 1 needs improvement.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with the investigation of mapping spatial distribution of canopy fuel loads by applying machine learning framework to UAV multispectral data and photogrammetric point clouds. The results seem promising for creating forest fuels maps. The methodology is well organized.

However, some points need clarification. At the discussion section you need to explain how easily is transferable your methodology. Have been used open source, (python code) in conjunction with commercial software.

All in all, my recommendation is to minor revision. Please find in the attached file the amendments which I believe are required prior to accepting the paper

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting and generally well-written and structured paper.  I do think though that it needs some final editing of the grammar and syntax with the help of a native English speaker and proofreader just to tidy it up. I also think there is a need to perhaps add in some paragraphs that perhaps (a) set the wider context in a bit more detail, (b) clarify some of the terminology - papers that often write up an 'experiment' often assume that readers are familiar with all of the more obscure terminology, and a some short paragraphs at the outset that explain the 'jargon' a little more in layman's terms would be helpful to the less familiar reader who wishes to find out more about e.g. a method etc., and (c) apart from the analytical illustrations there is a lack of any illustrations about the study area, the tree type canopies (imagery and diagrams), data collection etc. I wondered also why the flying height of the platform was so high? why a fixed-wing platform was chosen etc. One other thing I would like to have seen included is more of a contextual setting to the paper at the outset. There is some background, but I was not clear about what data/information is needed for which this particular solution is deemed to be a practical one. Also at the end there is nothing much said about how practical this approach is re: it being easy to apply and the timeframe needed to process the data and generate maps that might be usable for the forest manager and over what spatio-temporal dimension. Overall the paper is interesting, topical and the approach has potential.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I do think though that it needs some final editing of the grammar and syntax with the help of a native English speaker and proofreader just to tidy it up.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf