A Crown Contour Envelope Model of Chinese Fir Based on Random Forest and Mathematical Modeling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present a valuable contribution on the topic proposing a comparison between Random Forest prediction and regression-type methods. The paper clearly shows the suitability of RF for modelling the studied phenomena and results are sounds.

The only flaw I see is the use of a black box model which can't be extended outside the study case. Actually even if powerful, the accuracy prediction can't be addressed as a good final product. The beautiful feature of a regressive model indeed is the possibility to use the calculated coefficients to be run outside the modelling framework. So I think this issue has to be addressed in the paper. RF is good but is it worth to be used if other researchers are forced to measure the same variables to run a new model in a new context?

Then I also suggest:

1) To pay attention to the style of the abstract is to vague and should be more tailored on the data and the reasons why the RF and other models were selected 

2) To divide the results and the discussion section. In the current form the results are just poorly discussed

3) To reduce the conclusions without using bullet points or whatever, just reporting the main findings and proposing next research steps 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In the article “Crown contour envelope model of Chinese fir based on random forest and mathematical modeling”, Y. Tian and collaborators compare different methods for estimating the canopy crown extent at different heights, that they define as crown contour envelope.

The study is interesting as it aims to refine the estimation of canopy shape, a highly plastic feature of trees. However, the manuscript in its current form is not fit. The English is poor and simply not at the level required in scientific papers. It makes the article extremely hard to read and understand. I advise the authors to seek the support of a person who is a native speaker of the English language. The paper also needs a more rigorous writing, such as describing all symbols and acronyms in the legends of figures and table. Just looking at the abstract, variable names such as HALF_CW are used without being defined. Another example is the introduction. It should introduce the study, not only the general background, and state what are the objectives, but it does not. In addition, there are numerous errors and imprecisions in the text. Hereafter I describe a few in details, but this is not exhaustive.

Lines 17-18: I don’t understand this part.

Lines 45-49, not easy to follow

Line 91 needs a reference for Breiman.

Lines 99-106: why is this area interesting and relevant for the study? What is the scientific name of Chinese fir?

Please explain if forest stands are even aged or contain trees of different age classes mixed together.

Lines 113-114: what mean crown lengths of1/10, 1/4, 1/2, etc? Is it from the top or the bottom?

Line 119: figure legend should describe all symbols and acronyms used in the figure

Lines 125-129: I do not understand

lines 137-141: I do not understand

Table 1: legend should describe symbols and acronyms

Lines 158-159: equations 5 to 8 are not explained.

Lines 218-221: repeat of the same sentence.

Lines: 241-243: missing reference.

Equations 19 and 20: one of them is RMSE.

Figure 4: I don’t understand what is represented in the Y axis.

Figure 4 is not referred to in the text

Figure 5 legend: define RFE

Table 4: define all names

Figure 10: legend should explain what is represented in the X and Y axes.

It would be useful to add standard errors of measured values. Also I understand that HALF_CW was measured at certain heights only, and so it would be more relevant to present them as points instead of lines.

Finally the figures would be more intuitive if they were presented vertically

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors did an extensive work on their paper and all the comments I had were solved. The structure of the paper has also been modified dividing the Results from the Discussion. There are also many additional parts and sentences that the authors added that make the paper more pleasant to read and consistent. I'm happy the Authors welcomed my suggestions and I think that the paper is now much improved.

I also see that they payed for an English professional editing service which improved the grammar and style of the paper.

On my side I endorse the paper