Systematic Evaluation of Multi-Resolution ICESat-2 Canopy Height Data: A Case Study of the Taranaki Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study uses airborne LiDAR data as references to evaluate the along-track accuracy of the 12 m x 30 m canopy height product and its accuracy after pixel-by-pixel matching to Landsat data. This work is important and interesting. However, major revisions should be conducted before publication.

1)      What are the innovations and distinctive contributions of this manuscript?

2)      More comprehensive information regarding the data organization method based on pixel statistics should be provided.

3)      What accounts for the exceptional accuracy of ATLAS canopy height data in areas with high canopy cover? This contrasts significantly with previous research and calls for an explanation.

4)      Abbreviations, such as 'LiDAR' and 'ICESat-2,' should be fully spelled out upon their first use in the manuscript.

5)      The abstract would benefit from improvement.

6)      Authors are encouraged to enhance the introduction and make the technique description more accessible to a wider readership.

7)      Additional relevant references should be incorporated.

8)      The figures throughout the manuscript should be carefully reviewed.

9)      A comprehensive revision is necessary.

10)  Grammatical tense consistency should be checked and maintained.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have presented a novel approach of forest canopy height measurement. Canopy height is an important indicator of forest carbon storage. The approach described in the paper will help in better understanding of forest carbon storgae. The paper can be accepted in its current form. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled “Systematic evaluation of multi resolution ICESat-2 canopy height data: A case study of the Taranaki region” evaluates the accuracy of the ATLAS canopy height estimates in representing pixel-scale canopy heights and exploring a more accurate data organization method for expressing corresponding canopy heights at the pixel level. This study is interesting because it investigates the data from satellite LiDAR and its relationship with the canopy height with a local calibration. Even if I find this study interesting, I believe further significant improvements are necessary. 

 

The sections requiring substantial improvement include the introduction, results, and discussion sections. The figures in the results section lack proper commentary, and there is inconsistency in referencing methodology sentences within the results section. Additionally, the discussion section employs terms not defined in the material and methods or results. Nevertheless, some specific comments are below.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study assessed the along-track precision of ICESat-2's canopy height measurements at a finer resolution (12 m x 30 m) by using airborne LiDAR data as a benchmark. A new method for quick pixel-scale canopy height estimation was also introduced, showing notable improvements in accuracy, as evidenced by better statistical measures such as R², RMSE, and %RMSE. However, there are some issues that must be addressed before it may be considered for publishing. 

 

MAJOR revised：

(1) The topic of the manusecipt is not clear. ICESat-2 canopy height products are originally organized and released at a resolution of 12 meters by 100 meters. Therefore, analyzing its accuracy at 12 meters by 30 meters is somewhat peculiar, as ICESat-2 does not provide products with this resolution. I understand that the authors have generated a 12-meter by 30-meter height product using ICESat-2 data and have analyzed its accuracy. The abstract and the logic of the article both need to be restructured. The current version is confusing and hard to understand.

(2) The authors state three scientific tasks at the end of the Introduction section. However, I understand why the authors undertake the first task, while the literature review in the introduction does not provide necessary background and rationale for the second and third tasks. As a result, the introduction needs to be improved.

(3) The manuscript needs careful editing and particular attention to English grammar and sentence structure.

 

MINOR revised：

Lines 17-20: which data did you use to validate with the proposed method?

Line 39: What’s the meaning of the ‘members’?

Lines 82,89: The citation formats are not consistent.

Line 115, 124: unit format ‘km2’, please double check the unit format of the whole paper

Lines 187-188, 127: The full name of an abbreviation must be annotated when it first appears, and no repeated annotation is required.

Line 240: Figure 4, the legend of ‘all condition’ is not clear.

Line 318: Is ‘cell’ the same mean as ‘rectangle’? Please use the same word to describe the segment (12*30m) in this paper. Please double check ‘cell II with pixel B and cell III with pixel D’, which is different from Figure 9a.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

None

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the manuscript titled “Systematic Evaluation of Multi-Resolution ICESat-2 Canopy Height Data: A Case Study of the Taranaki Region” correctly responded to my queries.