Estimate Forest Aboveground Biomass of Mountain by ICESat-2/ATLAS Data Interacting Cokriging
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is interesting work and of global interest. The authors built a hyperparameter-optimized RF model after parameter extraction for ICESat-2 tracks within the forested area using data from 54 measured sample plots. Then, they selected a spherical model to fit the variance function based on the estimation results of all AGB footprints. The study takes full advantage of easy access to ATLAS data and dense footprints.
Observations generals
-Improve the quality of all figures
- What happens in other parts of the world, for example in the temperate forests of Mexico? For example: López-Serrano, P.M.; López Sánchez, C.A.; Solís-Moreno, R.; Corral-Rivas, J.J. Geospatial estimation of above ground forest biomass in the Sierra Madre Occidental in the state of Durango, Mexico. Forests 2016, 7, 70.
-Page 2. In paragraph "The R2 value of the DL model was 0.78….define R2 and it is recommended to add the error and use only the value and reference the coefficient, for example (R2=0.78; RMSE=???)
- Page 15. What do they mean by "The results of AGB spatial interpolation were generally consistent with the distribution of forest resources in the study area" better explain the conclusion
-- Page 15. Add a space between conclusions and Author Contributions
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
we thank you for your comments and suggestions on this study. In response to these suggestions, we have researched and discussed the questions and provided point-by-point answers to them. The revised manuscript is also highlighted in accordance with the revisions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I recommend the authors make substantial revisions to broaden the audience and clarify the significance of their results. The following are suggestions/ comments I have that I believe would improve this paper and its impact. The paper is jargon-heavy and not readable to a wide audience. Additionally, many sentences and paragraphs are not fluent and have poor sentence structure, especially throughout the abstract and introduction. There are no line numbers in the paper, so I determine my comments per section.
Overal Comments:
1. First of all, some recent citations about the estimation of AGB via remote sensing should be acknowledged and cited by the authors (I am not one of the authors of the following papers):
** https://doi.org/10.15287/afr.2022.2390
** https://doi.org/10.3390/f13010104
2. Abstract:
The length of this section is too much. For example, this sentence must be deleted: "And the results of this study have important practical implications for improving the accuracy of AGB estimation in the areas."
3. Title:
Do not use the abbreviation in the title (i.e., AGB).
4. Materials and Methods:
- In the first subsection, what is the meaning of "forest coverage rate"?
- Figure 1 (and the rest figures): Poor presentation, try to improve the quality,
5. Results:
-I have no comments for this section (just try to improve the quality of figures).
6. Discussion:
Use the abovementioned papers in this part to talk about the estimation of AGB via remote sensing.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
we thank you for your comments and suggestions on this study. In response to these suggestions, we have researched and discussed the questions and provided point-by-point answers to them. The revised manuscript is also highlighted in accordance with the revisions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Congratulation! I am happy with the revised version.
