Estimating 3D Green Volume and Aboveground Biomass of Urban Forest Trees by UAV-Lidar
and Huaqiang Du 2,3,4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I enjoyed reading this paper; the task at hand is accomplished with an interesting, modern solution. I recommend the paper for publication after minor revisions:
remove repetitive sentences in lines 118 and 135
the description of the formula (1) needs to be clarified - projected area of the nth layer of the point cloud
add a reference to the sentence on line 271
It's a wonderful research,
Good luck to the authors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript'Estimating 3D green biomass and aboveground biomass of urban forest trees by UAV-Lidar’ aimed to test some models which was the best to estimate single-tree AGB. The 3D green biomass was considered as the most important parameter for estimating the AGB of a single tree. This study provides a very reliable method for accurately estimating the aboveground biomass of urban forests..
The methods, results, and organization are very convincing. The discussion is consistent, but meanwhile, some minor issues were found in the text. However, this would be easy to fix and I think the paper deserves to be published with some changes.
Minor issues
Lines 118-129 - This paragraph is completely repeated with the lines 135-145. I think it is caused by misoperation.
Lines 168 - From this, the part including 2.4 3D green biomass calcualtion algorithm. As for this part, I think it may be more appropriate to put it in other places, but I am not sure where it is better. I have no better suggestions. Because it is like the summary of calculation methods and the elaboration of calculation results. Your co authors need to think it over.
Line 209 - From here on, there are some problems in the formula layout, please correct.
Line 298 - Figure 8, technical roadmap, font is too small to read.
Line 318 - Figure 9, font of coordinate axis is too small to read
Line 396 - 'Regarding the 3D green biomass extraction results' Rewrite this sentence because it feels like it's not finished.
Line 464 - It should be added sentences such as summary of research significance to clarify the research purpose of this study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
The manuscript must be improved.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors present an interesting manuscript highlighting that ULS point cloud data can be used to accurately extract the 3D green biomass of single trees in urban forests and that the 3D green biomass is promising for estimating the AGB of a single tree.
Authors must follow the specifications of the Microsoft Word template or LaTeX template to prepare their manuscript. Abstract: A single paragraph of about 200 words maximum.
In the introduction, highlights are missing to attracting the attention of the reader for novelty and relevance of the proposed contribution.
Conclusions could explore experimental results in a more consistent approach and give an assertive response to the proposed objectives.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
-The way the authors write the abstract is not common. Please read and write a normal abstract, without writing [Significant], [Methods], etc. Just write A three dimension (3D].
-After the authors present the accuracy (R2) of the previous papers, it can be seen that the proposed models actually have similar accuracy to the previously published paper.
Regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have improved the manuscript significantly and have answered all the concerns of reviewer. I support its publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
