Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The issue addressed in the paper discusses a new approach in botanical taxonomy tested on dragon tree group example. This is the current and interesting research topic, which analyzes the habitual metrics derived from the 3D tree point-cloud used for determination of selected species. In the proposed scope, the paper is important and generally correct. However, I recommend a few corrections to improve the quality of this article:

- to discuss the current state of the art (I also suggest a more dilligent description of the research methods; concise, coherent research scenario etc.);

- to increase the readability of data in charts and photos (e.g. numerical values should be arranged correctly in figures; precise, clear descriptions needed);

- to explain briefly whether there is a demand to use, for instance, other methods (example comparison),

that is, supplement the summary descriptive analysis (unfortunately poor discussion of results, please complete point 4).

I also strongly suggest that recommendations for specific, practical, not only general (and not entirely clear) applications of this research shall be provided (please complete point 5).

The language of this paper is relatively correct, however some descriptions would benefit from being more concise (please include native speaker verification).

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for all the updates, corrections, and comments.

All changes are highlighted in the attached corrected MS.

 

In points:

1. to discuss the current state of the art (I also suggest a more dilligent description of the research methods; concise, coherent research scenario etc.)

- Chapters Introduction and Methods have been updated to describe the study in a more diligent way.

2. to increase the readability of data in charts and photos (e.g. numerical values should be arranged correctly in figures; precise, clear descriptions needed);

- charts and photos have been commented and described to increase readability

3. to explain briefly whether there is a demand to use, for instance, other methods (example comparison),

- demand to use of the 3D tree point clouds and its metrics is described in the discussion

4. that is, supplement the summary descriptive analysis (unfortunately poor discussion of results, please complete point 4).

- discussion have been updated

5. I also strongly suggest that recommendations for specific, practical, not only general (and not entirely clear) applications of this research shall be provided (please complete point 5).

- conclusions have been updated

6. The language of this paper is relatively correct, however some descriptions would benefit from being more concise (please include native speaker verification).

- the whole text has been corrected by a native speaker

Reviewer 2 Report

The aim of the authors in the present contribution was to test the possibility of using 3D tree modelling to determine various habitual metrics and compare the morphological differences among several Dracaena species. The 3D tree modelling method is innovative and offers an opportunity for visual comparison of the size of the studied species on the same scale. This is a perspective area where there is a possibility to directly investigate the growth of the same tree individuals during the time. The disadvantage of this method is the dependence on the environment and the light conditions, but this are not problems that would not occur with other methods also.

It offers a different, new and perspective view of the use of 3D modeling with well-defined goals and applications in further research in this field.

Formal misspellings and mistakes:

line 93  - evaluated repair from evaluted

line 100 – point-clouds repair from pointclouds

line 112 – a 1.5 million point

line 144 – is? triangulated (are)

line 164 – α = 0.05 (point not comma)

page 6 - edit images to the same size

line 242 and 263 – abbreviation LAI, UAV?

line 255 - a new direction

I recommend in the graphs in fig. 8 and 9 add notes DC, DD, DS, DO - This is only a recommendation for easier reading.

Recommendations for addition:

It would be acceptable to add in the section "discussion" a short overview of spatial data quality aspects. To avoid having to search for a long time, I offer an overview of a few posts on this issue:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2014.11.008

https://doi.org/10.3390/app10030820

https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7608

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.01.006

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for all your comments and updates.

Corrections are highlighted in the attached corrected MS.

In points:

1. line 93  - evaluated repair from evaluated and others

- the whole text has been corrected by a native speaker

2. I recommend in the graphs in fig. 8 and 9 add notes DC, DD, DS, DO - This is only a recommendation for easier reading.

- all Figs and charts have been described to enhance readability

3. It would be acceptable to add in the section "discussion" a short overview of spatial data quality aspects.

- spatial data aspects are discussed newly in chapter 4

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.