Accurate Estimation of Forest Canopy Height Based on GEDI Transmitted Deconvolution Waveforms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The choice of figures 6a to 6h to explain a methodology, or an algorithm, is perplexing. I have difficulties with it. I don't find it a proper explanation of methodology - at least I don't understand it.I would prefer a clearer more detailed explanation, with real example, in annex material

Regarding the Gaussian fitted waveform, what do the authors set 8 as the iterations choses ? This should justified too.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

although the text is understandable, there are several grammatical issues:
there are plenty of awkward phrasing, missing "the", repetitions, missing plural "s" etc

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Symbol definitions are inconsistent or unclear in multiple equations throughout the text (e.g., Equations 5, 9, 11, etc.), such as the definitions of N and frame numbers. It is recommended to clearly define all symbols upon their first appearance or provide a symbol list in the appendix.
2. Improve the physical basis for setting the IDTW noise threshold, the remote sensing mechanism for transforming ground response function dimensions, and the derivation of the terrain slope formula.
3. Some text in figures (e.g., Figs. 13–19) is too small, and legends are unclear. We recommend re-formatting or providing higher-resolution images. Some diagrams (e.g., Fig. 6) appear rough; we suggest using more professional drawing tools for optimization.
4. Reference formatting is inconsistent (e.g., missing DOIs, incomplete volume/issue numbers). Please fully format according to journal requirements.
5. Enhance comparative experiments by including comparisons with at least one existing waveform processing method, such as the classical approach based on ICESat/GLAS.
6. Minor grammatical errors and unclear expressions exist (e.g., repeated use of “the research results indicate that”). Full-text language editing is recommended.
7. Section 4.2 attributes the lower accuracy at 20°–30° slopes compared to 10°–20° slopes to fewer points and lower signal-to-noise ratio, but lacks statistical significance testing. Supplement with relevant statistical tests (e.g., t-test or ANOVA).
8. The paper does not specify the exact time difference between GEDI and G-LiHT data at the same site (e.g., month or date difference). If occurring during the vegetation growing season (e.g., June–August in North America), a time gap exceeding one month may introduce natural canopy height variations, affecting validation accuracy. Supplement details on G-LiHT data aggregation methods and TCC data calibration to ensure validation data reliability.
9. The current comparison is limited to RH parameters provided by GEDI L2A. We recommend adding comparisons with existing mainstream deconvolution or wavelet decomposition methods (e.g., Richardson-Lucy, Wiener filtering) to highlight the advantages of this method.
10. Enhance the credibility of the results by adding small-sample statistical significance verification and sensitivity analysis for different GEDI versions.
11. Global applicability is limited. Supplement with validation from 1-2 non-North American sites (e.g., southwestern Chinese mountains, Amazon rainforest), or discuss potential algorithm adjustments for different vegetation types (e.g., iteration count, noise threshold).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accurately estimating forest canopy height is crucial for monitoring global carbon cycling and assessing progress towards achieving carbon neutrality goals. To accurately extract forest canopy height, this study proposes a canopy height inversion method that combines deconvolution of GEDI transmission waveforms with terrain slope constraints on ground response functions. The research results indicate that the proposed method improves the accuracy of estimating forest canopy height from GEDI data, especially in areas with complex terrain. However, there are still some issues that need improvement:
1.In the abstract, it is suggested to carefully consider whether the abbreviation IDTW for the decomposition of GEDI transmitted waves is reasonable.
2.In the introduction, should 'he Earth's forest ecosystem plays' be replaced by' The Earth's forest ecosystem plays'.
3.Pay attention to the English expression and check if the subject is missing in this sentence "And provides an important data foundation for monitoring carbon cycle in global forest ecosystem".
4.Why are there two paragraphs at the end of the introduction that express the objective of this article?
5.In Figure 2, the distinction between strong beams and weak beams is not clear.
6. “RH” is more commonly understood as Relative Height rather than as a “waveform length parameter.” Please think carefully.
7. GEDI’s lasers are referred to as “full power” and “coverage lasers”; it is recommended to change the terminology accordingly.
7. Please clearly explain the difference between rh and RH.
8. What does' radar noise 'specifically refer to? Please provide corresponding explanations in the article.
9.There is a Chinese expression in Table 3 such as "地形坡度范围", it is recommended to modify it.
10.There are many issues with the reference format, and it is recommended to carefully revise it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for their careful responses to all comments and for revising the manuscript. The overall responses are satisfactory, and I have no further questions.