Estimating Above-Ground Biomass from Land Surface Temperature and Evapotranspiration Data at the Temperate Forests of Durango, Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript explored the sensitivity of land surface temperature and evapotranspiration data to the change of forest AGB, the topic is interesting since the features extracted from these datasets are indicators in drought processes and vegetation under water stress. The paper is well written and presented but its content suffers from a lack of novelty and a lack of perspectives in terms of transferability to other test sites. I would therefore strongly recommend to test a wider diversity of forest plots. Moreover, I have some major concerns and suggestions as follows:

1.      Please give the full words for the first time using an Acronyms (Line 24).

2.      I would suggest authors to provide the detail information of the filed collected samples. For example, the range of the AGB, the distribution of the AGB values and so on.

3.      The items in table5 and table 6 need to be interpreted in the manuscript and some of them need to give the formulas.

4.      Correct the difference of ‘edf’ in table 6 and ‘Edf’ in table 7.

5.      There in no legend for Fig.5.

6.      I would suggest authors to provide the detail information about Fig.4 and Fig.6, it is unreadable.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The manuscript explored the sensitivity of land surface temperature and evapotranspiration data to the change of forest AGB, the topic is interesting since the features extracted from these datasets are indicators in drought processes and vegetation under water stress. The paper is well written and presented but its content suffers from a lack of novelty and a lack of perspectives in terms of transferability to other test sites. I would therefore strongly recommend to test a wider diversity of forest plots. Moreover, I have some major concerns and suggestions as follows: 

Dear reviewer, thanks a lot for your editorial concern and for reviewing our manuscript. We have addressed or corrected the points that you commented.

The present manuscript focused on the temperate forests of Durango, since the available field data were representative of this type of vegetation. However, in future research could use data from other vegetation types with field data from other sources. We added an idea about the importance of testing the LST and ET in the estimation of AGB in more types of forest ecosystems.  See lines 404-408.

“This research is focused on temperate forest, however in future research it would be interesting to analyze the relationship of other types of vegetation with a model like the one developed in this document. This would allow to identify more potential uses of LST and ET in the monitoring of forest resources.”

Using available field data, we furthermore performed, in the revised manuscript, and independent verification of the model to other test sites (Lines 241-242):

“a verification of the model was carried out, using an independent field dataset (n=50), in order to evaluate the AGB predicted from the model values”.

Results are presented in lines 319-321 and Table 9:

“Table 9 shows the descriptive statistics and adjustment statistics of the verification of the GAM model through the application of the model to 50 AGB data derived from SPIFyS independent of the dataset used to generate the GAM model”.

Please give the full words for the first time using an Acronyms (Line 24).

R=Thanks for pointing this out, we added the missing information.  

1. I would suggest authors to provide the detail information of the filed collected samples. For example, the range of the AGB, the distribution of the AGB values and so on.

R = Thank you for useful suggestion, we added descriptive statics about AGB field data, please see line 130.

2. The items in table 5 and table 6 need to be interpreted in the manuscript and some of them need to give the formulas.

R= In the new version of manuscript, the formulas are described and referenced in the Tables 5, 6, and sections 2.3 and 2.4.

3. Correct the difference of ‘edf’ in table 6 and ‘Edf’ in table 7.

R= Thanks for the observation, in the new version of the manuscript the correct word is "edf"

4. There in no legend for Fig.5.

R= In the new version of the document, the legend is on line 296-298

5. would suggest authors to provide the detail information about Fig.4 and Fig.6, it is unreadable.

R= Thanks for the suggestion, in the new version of the manuscript, we have changed figures 4 and 6 for higher quality images.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article under review is another attempt to predict the value of above-ground biomass based on remote sensing data.

It should be noted that the authors very successfully selected the parameters of the model, substantiating them with previous studies. However, there are some issues that require clarification and improvement:

1. Influence of latitude and longitude of the area. Is not this parameter influenced by hydrothermal conditions, which are determined by the location of the site?

2. There is one big drawback in the work - there is no model verification. Although the authors, as can be seen from the article, have a huge amount of factual material of ground-based measurements, and it should not be a problem for them to make verification.

I think that the article is interesting and extremely useful. It contributes to the complex problem of above-ground biomass modeling. The article can be published after the inclusion of material confirming the validity of the model.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The article under review is another attempt to predict the value of above-ground biomass based on remote sensing data.

It should be noted that the authors very successfully selected the parameters of the model, substantiating them with previous studies. However, there are some issues that require clarification and improvement:

Dear reviewer, thanks a lot for reviewing our manuscript. We have addressed or corrected the changes you commented. We take your comments into account to improve the paper, we have done the following changes:

1. Influence of latitude and longitude of the area. Is not this parameter influenced by hydrothermal conditions, which are determined by the location of the site?

R= Certainly, the spatial features are the most important drives to climate characteristics. This was further discussed in lines 371-380 pf the revised manuscript: “The Longitude-Latitude interaction was deemed as an influential variable for the productivity of an ecosystem. These spatial variables greatly favor the site’s climatic characteristics (e.g., solar incidence, wind, humidity) that determine the photosynthetic and plant respiration processes [21,64–66] and also impact biodiversity, nutrients cycles, and the hydrothermal conditions of vegetable populations [21]”.

There is one big drawback in the work - there is no model verification. Although the authors, as   can be seen from the article, have a huge amount of factual material of ground-based measurements, and it should not be a problem for them to make verification.

R= Thank you for the suggestion. Using available field data, we furthermore performed, in the revised manuscript, and independent verification of the model to other test sites (Lines 241-242):

“a verification of the model was carried out, using an independent field dataset (n=50), in order to evaluate the AGB predicted from the model values”.

Results are presented in lines 319-321 and Table 9:

“Table 9 shows the descriptive statistics and adjustment statistics of the verification of the GAM model through the application of the model to 50 AGB data derived from SPIFyS independent of the dataset used to generate the GAM model”..

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The paper entitled “Estimating above-ground biomass from Land Surface temperature and evapotranspiration data at the temperate forests of Durango, Mexico” investigated the relationship of AGB with LST, VTCI and ET, at different seasons) in Mexico. The paper prepared really good, methods explained completely and results are comprehensive, discussion and conclusion support the results, so in my opinion it must be considered as minor revision.

Abstract:

1.       Explicit some abbreviations I the abstract.

2.       LN 27: You must introduce GLCM in LN 24.

3.       Write about aim of the study in abstract.

Introduction:

1.       LN 37: Above-ground forest biomassà Above-ground biomass (AGB)

2.       You can use following papers in the introduction and discussion sections. Their studies are close to yours and have valuable information.

https://doi.org/10.3390/f12070902

https://doi.org/10.3390/f13010104

https://doi.org/10.3390/f12121713

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-020-00151-6

3.       LN 97: Which seasons?

Material and methods:

4.       Figure 1: Use a and b as subplots.

Results:

5.       Some figures have poor quality like figure 6. Please replace with the good one.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Dear authors,

The paper entitled “Estimating above-ground biomass from Land Surface temperature and evapotranspiration data at the temperate forests of Durango, Mexico” investigated the relationship of AGB with LST, VTCI and ET, at different seasons) in Mexico. The paper prepared really good, methods explained completely, and results are comprehensive, discussion and conclusion support the results, so in my opinion it must be considered as minor revision.

Dear reviewer,

Many thanks for your editorial concern and for reviewing our manuscript, we attended the suggestions which allowed improve the document.

1. Explicit some abbreviations I the abstract.

R= Thanks for the observation. We added the missing information

2. LN 27: You must introduce GLCM in LN 24.

R= Thanks for the observation.

3. Write about aim of the study in abstract.

R= Thanks for the observation. We modified the redaction of aim in the abstract, in order to made it more explicit. See line 20-24.

Introduction

4. LN 37: Above-ground forest biomassà Above-ground biomass (AGB)

R= Thanks for pointing this out. We have corrected the term.  See line 42.

5. You can use following papers in the introduction and discussion sections. Their studies are close to yours and have valuable information.

https://doi.org/10.3390/f12070902

https://doi.org/10.3390/f13010104

https://doi.org/10.3390/f12121713

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-020-00151-6

R= Thanks a lot for the suggestions. We were able to improve the discussion with ideas of these research.

See lines 342 -344.

“Teofano et al. [54] analyzed the relation of AGB with indexes vegetation of a forest plantation, they figured out that this relation change through the year and there are related with the phenostage, the growth stage shows the weakest relation.”

See lines 359-360.

“The water stress is highly correlated with AGB due less water availability is related with populations with lower rates of ABG increase [59]”

6. LN 97: Which seasons?

R= the analysis of the relationship between AGB and satellite information was conducted in the four seasons of the year. We clarify this idea in the text. See lines 102.

7. Figure 1: Use a and b as subplots.

R= done. See Figure 1 and lines 114.

8. Some figures have poor quality like figure 6. Please replace with the good one.

R= We have changed the figures 4 and 6 for images with higher quality, thanks for pointing out it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors.

Thank you for responding to the reviewer's comments.

The article can be published in a present form.