Estimation of Rubber Plantation Biomass Based on Variable Optimization from Sentinel-2 Remote Sensing Imagery

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Find my comments in the pdf file and good luck.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We have made revisions to all the issues. For detailed modifications, please refer to the attached document. In our manuscript, the modified sections are highlighted in yellow background.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

The authors have done a lot of work. A good result has been obtained. However, the question of independent testing of the model remains. There is no certainty that this model will give the same good result when using data from another year. For example, one could train on 2021 data and test on 2023 data.

 

Specific comments:

Lines 29-30. Keywords should not repeat terms from the title of the manuscript, e.g. “rubber plantation”, “Sentinel-2”.

Line 38. “Hevea brasiliensis” – Latin names of botanical species should be written in italics.

Line 58, 62, …. “Seidel et al.”, “Liang et al.”. The reference should be provided after the author's surname.

Lines 60-62. Controversial statement. There is a perception that LIDAR technology has become the dominant data collection tool for aboveground biomass estimation.

Borsah, A.A.; Nazeer, M.; Wong, M.S. LIDAR-Based Forest Biomass Remote Sensing: A Review of Metrics, Methods, and Assessment Criteria for the Selection of Allometric Equations. Forests 2023, 14, 2095. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14102095

Wang Q., Pang Y., Chen D., Liang X., Lu J. Lidar biomass index: A novel solution for tree-level biomass estimation using 3D crown information. Forest Ecol. Manag., 499 (2021), Article 119542, 10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119542

Line 170. Section “2.2.1. AGB measurements”. It is recommended that the survey sites be described in greater detail, including the specific varieties and ages of the trees. It would also be beneficial to include the number of plots that were surveyed and the total number of trees that were observed.

Line 183. The formula does not take into account cultivar and orography. Or does it not affect the biomass of Hevea brasiliensis?

Lines 248-253. This paragraph is appropriate in the introduction.

Line 258. To apply the Pearson coefficient, the following conditions must be met The distributions of variables X and Y must be close to normal. The authors of the article did not perform the test of conformity of the distribution of values to the Gaussian distribution.

Line 270. This is a well-known formula; there is no need to cite it in the text of the manuscript. But if you do cite, a reference is required.

Line 282. It is unclear why 10 principal components were chosen. Provide PCA results in the paper.

Lines 311-313. These are well known formulas; there is no need to cite it in the text of the manuscript. But if you do cite, a reference is required.

Line 341. Figure 3. Low quality. Please provide significance levels for the correlation coefficients.

Line 355. Figure 4. Please provide significance levels for the correlation coefficients. The axis names are incorrect.

Lines 396-405. The parameters in G1-G5 are unclear. They should be given in the form of a table.

Line 541. Section References. Many references do not have a DOI.

Author Response

We have made revisions to all the issues. For detailed modifications, please refer to the attached document. In our manuscript, the modified sections are highlighted in yellow background.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors!

Thank you very much for answering all my questions, I have no more questions regarding the manuscript.