Leveraging Deep Learning Models for Targeted Aboveground Biomass Estimation in Specific Regions of Interest

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1 Chapter INTRODUCTION

1a. This chapter contains 23 items of literature, which is a relatively small number for a manuscript submitted for publication in a serious scientific journal. However, it can be considered, after reviewing them, to be a sufficient number to write an introduction to this manuscript.

1b. The reader expects this handout to conclude with a presentation of the purpose of the research performed, but unfortunately, this is not found. We learn why the research was conducted only in Chapter 1: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. 

2 Chapter MATERIALS AND METHODS

2a. I recommend that the authors consider the appropriateness of the present tense for the description of the methods used in the research in the chapter MATERIALS AND METHODS and change it partly to the past tense, leaving the present tense only to the description of the rationale for the research stages performed.

2b. In addition, this chapter contains illustrations for which it needs to be clarified whether they were made by the authors of the manuscript for this work or taken from other published material. If so, their source should be indicated.

2c. This chapter needs a thorough justification of the methods used by citing additional references. Specifically, this applies to the methods entitled:

- Calculating green weight (GW),

- Calculating dry weight (DW),

- Calculating carbon storage (C). 

What is the basis for such calculations, and what are the units of measurement, especially for determining (DW) and (C)? This information is not given. The data should be completed and justified by cited literature or chemical calculations.

3 Chapter RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3a. Also, I recommend that the authors consider varying the times used in this chapter, as I suggested in note 2a. 

3b. I have no particular comment describing the research performed and the results presented. However, I do have a fundamental comment on the "discussion" of the results because it is virtually non-existent. A properly executed Discussion should not only refer to the results obtained and described in the manuscript but should also include references to other published similar papers. Even if the studies described in them were related to other topics and similar methods were used. The discussion should be carried out more thoroughly in relation to the world literature. It should have referred to the items cited in the review. Perhaps other valuable published work on similar topics was not included in this manuscript, especially as 23 items of literature is too few for a topic related to machine learning algorithms.

 4 Chapter CONCLUSIONS

4b. The sentence starting this chapter as a research conclusion, 'Satellite sensor data may be used to estimate CO2 exchange on a regional or global scale,' was the basis and assumption for the research conducted and should not be a conclusion. Conclusions should follow from the research carried out and relate to the research purpose, which is clearly not specified. So, the conclusions are also bland. 

 

I propose to make the corrections I suggested in the manuscript.

Author Response

Round-1 Reviewer-1 Comments

1 Chapter INTRODUCTION

1a. This chapter contains 23 items of literature, which is a relatively small number for a manuscript submitted for publication in a serious scientific journal. However, it can be considered, after reviewing them, to be a sufficient number to write an introduction to this manuscript.

Response:

Thank you for your valuable input. We have expanded the introduction section of the manuscript by including additional 10 papers and enriching its content.

1b. The reader expects this handout to conclude with a presentation of the purpose of the research performed, but unfortunately, this is not found. We learn why the research was conducted only in Chapter 1: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. 

Response:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised the conclusion in accordance with the provided comments.

2 Chapter MATERIALS AND METHODS

2a. I recommend that the authors consider the appropriateness of the present tense for the description of the methods used in the research in the chapter MATERIALS AND METHODS and change it partly to the past tense, leaving the present tense only to the description of the rationale for the research stages performed.

Response:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. The manuscript has undergone a thorough review, with particular attention to tense consistency and sentence structure, resulting in refined clarity and coherence.

2b. In addition, this chapter contains illustrations for which it needs to be clarified whether they were made by the authors of the manuscript for this work or taken from other published material. If so, their source should be indicated.

Response:

Thank you for the comments.

Acknowledging your feedback, the manuscript's content was generated by the authors.

2c. This chapter needs a thorough justification of the methods used by citing additional references. Specifically, this applies to the methods entitled:

- Calculating green weight (GW),

- Calculating dry weight (DW),

- Calculating carbon storage (C). 

What is the basis for such calculations, and what are the units of measurement, especially for determining (DW) and (C)? This information is not given. The data should be completed and justified by cited literature or chemical calculations.

Response:

Thank you for the comments.

Additional references have been incorporated into the paper to support the accuracy of the calculations.

3 Chapter RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3a. Also, I recommend that the authors consider varying the times used in this chapter, as I suggested in note 2a. 

Response:

Thank you for the comments.

The paper has been thoroughly reviewed and necessary corrections have been made accordingly. It now reflects enhanced accuracy and clarity.

 

3b. I have no particular comment describing the research performed and the results presented. However, I do have a fundamental comment on the "discussion" of the results because it is virtually non-existent. A properly executed Discussion should not only refer to the results obtained and described in the manuscript but should also include references to other published similar papers. Even if the studies described in them were related to other topics and similar methods were used. The discussion should be carried out more thoroughly in relation to the world literature. It should have referred to the items cited in the review. Perhaps other valuable published work on similar topics was not included in this manuscript, especially as 23 items of literature is too few for a topic related to machine learning algorithms.

Response:

Thank you for the comments.

The published work details are cited in the results and discussion section.

 

 4 Chapter CONCLUSIONS

4b. The sentence starting this chapter as a research conclusion, 'Satellite sensor data may be used to estimate CO2 exchange on a regional or global scale,' was the basis and assumption for the research conducted and should not be a conclusion. Conclusions should follow from the research carried out and relate to the research purpose, which is clearly not specified. So, the conclusions are also bland. 

Response:

Thank you for the comments.

The contents are added and rephrased.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this work a theoretical model has been developed for the estimation of the Above Ground Biomass in forest ecosystems with final aim of estimating the level of carbon present in the atmosphere. This is a very recent technology that could make a significant contribution in fighting deforestation and improving air quality. However, before this work can be accepted for publication, authors should address the following aspects.

1. In the list of authors, please add a space after “and” and also the indication of the corresponding author is missing.

2. In the INTRODUCTION paragraph:

-“the region of Interest” is written sometimes with capital letter and other times no, please uniform it;

- the image can be represented in terms of graph by representing it in the form of graph: what does it means? Maybe you repeat twice the same sentence.

3. For a better comprehension please specify all acronyms at the beginning of the text or the first time they are mentioned. For example RGB is for? CNN is for?

4. Pag. 5: “In the case of AGB estimation the distribution of colours in the images. ” The sentence is not clear. Please add a verb.

5. The work has been carried out using the Region of Interest method and, in particular, the biomass of the subtropical woods in the areas of India, Indonesia and Thailand has been considered. As the final aim of the work is to estimate the level of carbon and the value of AGB present in that particular area, I suggest to the authors using the data obtained to broaden the discussion by commenting on the results also from an environmental point of view.

After addressing these aspects this work can be considered for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Round-1 Reviewer-2 Comments

 In this work a theoretical model has been developed for the estimation of the Above-Ground Biomass in forest ecosystems with final aim of estimating the level of carbon present in the atmosphere. This is a very recent technology that could make a significant contribution in fighting deforestation and improving air quality. However, before this work can be accepted for publication, authors should address the following aspects.

1.In the list of authors, please add a space after “and” and also the indication of the corresponding author is missing.

Response:

 Thanks for the comments.

 

 The corrections have been done.

2. In the INTRODUCTION paragraph:

- “the region of Interest” is written sometimes with capital letter and other times no, please uniform it;

Response:

Thanks for the comments.

 

The mentioned corrections have been done and the contents are updated in the manuscript.

- the image can be represented in terms of graph by representing it in the form of graph: what does it means? May be you repeat twice the same sentence.

Response:

Thanks for the comments.

The sentences have been refined for clarity and accuracy in the manuscript.

3. For a better comprehension please specify all acronyms at the beginning of the text or the first time they are mentioned. For example RGB is for? CNN is for?

Response:

Thanks for the comments.

Throughout the manuscript, acronyms have been appropriately referenced, enhancing communication precision.

4. Pag. 5: “In the case of AGB estimation the distribution of colours in the images.” The sentence is not clear. Please add a verb.

Response:

Thanks for the comments.

The sentence has been reframed in the manuscript.

5. The work has been carried out using the Region of Interest method and the biomass of the subtropical woods in the areas of India, Indonesia and Thailand has been considered. As the final aim of the work is to estimate the level of carbon and the value of AGB present in that particular area, I suggest to the authors using the data obtained to broaden the discussion by commenting on the results also from an environmental point of view.

Response:

Thanks for the comments.

The contents have been added and the corrections have been done.

After addressing these aspects this work can be considered for publication.

Response:

Thanks for the comment.

All these aspects have been addressed.