Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Firstly，Understanding the amount, health and location of carbon sequestration in response to the global challenge of climate change has become critical. The authors would have combined landscape analysis methods with carbon assessment techniques to assess the carbon sequestration potential of forested areas at a reasonably fine scale, taking into account species-specific changes. This study provides valuable insights for forest management and climate action planning, but it is recommended that the content be revised prior to publication so as to improve the quality of the article and its accessibility to readers. The main issues are as follows:

1. it is recommended that the authors rewrite the abstract section to present the main study and conclusions. the second sentence in the abstract should belong to the introduction section, so it is recommended that the authors rewrite the abstract.

2. The keywords should reflect the core content of the text, and we hope that the authors will extract up to 3-5 keywords.

3. The logical structure of the introduction part is confusing, citing a lot of references, but not summarizing the content of the article for their own service, I hope that the authors of the introduction content to make a comb, re-construct the framework, and then improve the quality of the article.

4. What is the significance of the two research objectives mentioned in the article, and what are the outstanding advantages compared with the research of other scholars?

5. Most of the figures in the article are not clear, please revise or improve the resolution of the pictures.

6. Kriging interpolation is a stochastic interpolation technique based on the general least squares algorithm, which uses the variance map as the weight function, but there are different algorithmic functions with different applicability targets, and the author also mentioned this point in the original article.

7.CTAP Please tell me if it is proposed by the author? If not, please add the argumentative material.

8. Please standardize the scale format throughout the text.

9. What is the outlook of the methodology used in the paper? How were the featured tree species scientifically selected for this study?

10.Carbon sequestration is the use of plant photosynthesis to increase the carbon sequestration and carbon storage capacity of ecosystems by controlling carbon fluxes. Plants convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into carbohydrates through photosynthesis and fix it in the form of organic carbon in the plant body or in the soil. Relatively speaking the authors study area is a complex region influenced by different factors such as carbon sequestration in water bodies, so how do the authors differentiate in this region for the effect of the complex environment on the results.

From the references cited by the authors it is clear that there is no up-to-date reading of relevant research, so what are your possible innovations and shortcomings relative to other studies? You should discuss the strengths and weaknesses of your approach. Also, you need to articulate how these shortcomings can be overcome to improve the study.

11.Why are the shortcomings of the thesis presented in the conclusion section? Firstly, the accuracy of kriging simulations is highly dependent on the degree of spatial autocorrelation within the dataset, and further enhancements and improvements are needed for its application in real forest management scenarios. In addition, the use of average estimation methods to determine tree size deserves consideration. This approach does not take into account the spatial structure of the data and may lead to oversimplification, whereby important information on spatial patterns may be lost. Despite these limitations, this integrated approach can provide a valuable reference for future construction, planning, and decision-making processes, providing an acceptable level of uncertainty that can be effectively tested and appropriately adjusted in subsequent projects. Is this the conclusion of your article?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Firstly，Understanding the amount, health and location of carbon sequestration in response to the global challenge of climate change has become critical. The authors would have combined landscape analysis methods with carbon assessment techniques to assess the carbon sequestration potential of forested areas at a reasonably fine scale, taking into account species-specific changes. This study provides valuable insights for forest management and climate action planning, but it is recommended that the content be revised prior to publication so as to improve the quality of the article and its accessibility to readers. The main issues are as follows:

1. it is recommended that the authors rewrite the abstract section to present the main study and conclusions. the second sentence in the abstract should belong to the introduction section, so it is recommended that the authors rewrite the abstract.

2. The keywords should reflect the core content of the text, and we hope that the authors will extract up to 3-5 keywords.

3. The logical structure of the introduction part is confusing, citing a lot of references, but not summarizing the content of the article for their own service, I hope that the authors of the introduction content to make a comb, re-construct the framework, and then improve the quality of the article.

4. What is the significance of the two research objectives mentioned in the article, and what are the outstanding advantages compared with the research of other scholars?

5. Most of the figures in the article are not clear, please revise or improve the resolution of the pictures.

6. Kriging interpolation is a stochastic interpolation technique based on the general least squares algorithm, which uses the variance map as the weight function, but there are different algorithmic functions with different applicability targets, and the author also mentioned this point in the original article.

7.CTAP Please tell me if it is proposed by the author? If not, please add the argumentative material.

8. Please standardize the scale format throughout the text.

9. What is the outlook of the methodology used in the paper? How were the featured tree species scientifically selected for this study?

10.Carbon sequestration is the use of plant photosynthesis to increase the carbon sequestration and carbon storage capacity of ecosystems by controlling carbon fluxes. Plants convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into carbohydrates through photosynthesis and fix it in the form of organic carbon in the plant body or in the soil. Relatively speaking the authors study area is a complex region influenced by different factors such as carbon sequestration in water bodies, so how do the authors differentiate in this region for the effect of the complex environment on the results.

From the references cited by the authors it is clear that there is no up-to-date reading of relevant research, so what are your possible innovations and shortcomings relative to other studies? You should discuss the strengths and weaknesses of your approach. Also, you need to articulate how these shortcomings can be overcome to improve the study.

11.Why are the shortcomings of the thesis presented in the conclusion section? Firstly, the accuracy of kriging simulations is highly dependent on the degree of spatial autocorrelation within the dataset, and further enhancements and improvements are needed for its application in real forest management scenarios. In addition, the use of average estimation methods to determine tree size deserves consideration. This approach does not take into account the spatial structure of the data and may lead to oversimplification, whereby important information on spatial patterns may be lost. Despite these limitations, this integrated approach can provide a valuable reference for future construction, planning, and decision-making processes, providing an acceptable level of uncertainty that can be effectively tested and appropriately adjusted in subsequent projects. Is this the conclusion of your article?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript is an excellent work aimed at improving the assessment of carbon sequestration capacity. The authors compare the traditional method by integrating forest sample data from the Critical Trends Assessment Program, land use maps, and forest type maps collected across Illinois and employ a novel landscape method, merging spatial design principles with ecological data analysis, to explore and understand carbon sequestration assets in Illinois comprehensively. Validation of tree species is conducted by studying Google Street View (GSV) 360 imagery coupled with computer vision techniques.

In my view, the study contains a good literature review. The methodology is detailed, and the results are presented and analysed appropriately. The conclusions that were made are in accordance with the results established in the study.

I have the following remarks for the authors:

1.       Keywords such as “carbon sequestration in Illinois” should be added.

2.       Why were only three tree species chosen for their impact analysis - oak, beech and cypress?

3.       It would be helpful for readers of this article to compare Illinois data with other states and determine the average level of carbon dioxide uptake for the U.S.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of this paper is very interesting, as it improves the scalability of afforestation and reforestation engineering planning. The practical use of the proposed methodology is evident, and covers a research gap, as it pushes current methodologies further, combining and evolving different approaches and techniques.

The structure of the paper is very clear, a great merit considering that involves using many different current approaches and methodologies. Quoting is well-worked and relevant, although some formal mistakes were detected (referred later in review).

The use of different known methodologies combined to push knowledge further is correct, and the considerations of the final discussion are especially honest, raising cautions about the limitations of the proposed method.

About data management, only a few final results are shown in maps and tables. Although a great number of mathematical, geographical spatial analysis and IA data treatment methodologies were applied, and maybe a more detailed data explanation would have been somewhat messy, I would recommend making intermediate data available online if possible. This is not a great liability for the article as the authors declare that data is available upon request. However, maybe some more explanation about how IPCC Gain-Loss Method was calculated for the case study would have been adequate, as well as more evident comparative results of how this was used to check method validation.

Another suggestion for the authors relates about final discussion proposals, as very specific recommendations could have been done by the authors for the case study, instead of generic considerations. I think the methodology is solid and strong enough to make specific proposals of afforestation and regeneration projects in Illinois. However, maybe the authors plan to address this in future publications.

Proposed future lines of investigation are of paramount scientific interest, and I especially look forward about reading about the application of this methodology to urban spaces. Personally, I would have liked to have this methodology available for my professional decision making three years ago.

As a final note, some formal mistakes were detected. Quotes #27 and 29 were not correctly copied. Additionally, at the end of the manuscript the word “simar” should be changed to “similar”.

As mentioned above, the overall review is very positive, and I am looking forward to read more about this line of research in the future.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf