A Review of Biomass Estimation Methods for Forest Ecosystems in Kenya: Techniques, Challenges, and Future Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) In the abstract, it is suggested that core research findings can be identified with numbered items, which can help readers understand the content of the article more clearly.

(2) The third and fourth sentences in the first paragraph of the introduction seem to be more appropriately placed at the beginning of the paragraph.

(3) The second paragraph of the introduction is logically confused. Please reorganize and improve it. At present, it is difficult to clearly show the research purpose, scientific significance and practical value of this study in the introduction.

(4) In the Materials and Methods section, it is recommended to briefly describe relevant information such as the natural environment, climate conditions, socioeconomic development, ecological system characteristics, and administrative divisions of Konya. This will play a very good role in facilitating foreign readers' understanding of the entire article.

(5) It is recommended to provide an overall introduction to the status of the literature retrieved in this paper before starting the literature analysis, including the research topic, the methods used, the total number of literature, etc.

(6) In Section 3.4, it is necessary to conduct necessary discussions and introductions on the relationship between Kenya's forest management actions and forest management and sustainable development across Africa and globally.

(7) In Section 4, it is necessary to clearly point out what the similarities and differences are between the estimation of forest biomass in Kenya and that in other parts of the world, and what the challenges and opportunities are for domestic research.

(8) The suggestions in the conclusion part are too simple. It is recommended that the author can provide a more sufficient explanation of this issue in the main text.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

Title: A Review of Biomass Estimation Methods for Forest Ecosystems in Kenya: Techniques, Challenges, and Future Perspectives

Journal: Lands

 

We thank the reviewers and the academic editor for their constructive comments and suggestions, which have greatly helped us to improve the clarity, structure, and contribution of our manuscript. Below, we provide a point-by-point response. Reviewer comments are in italics, and our responses follow.

 

1. In the abstract, it is suggested that core research findings can be identified with numbered items…

Response: We have revised the abstract to 195 words, clearly identifying objectives, methods, and three numbered key findings, and emphasizing novelty and contribution.

 

2. The third and fourth sentences in the first paragraph of the introduction…

Response: We restructured the introduction so that the global context comes first, followed by Kenyan context, then objectives and significance.

 

3. The second paragraph of the introduction is logically confused…

Response: The introduction has been rewritten for logical flow. We now clearly present the research purpose, scientific significance, and practical value in distinct sentences.

 

4. In the Materials and Methods section, it is recommended to briefly describe… Kenya.

Response: We added a short subsection describing Kenya’s natural environment, climate variability, ecological system diversity, and administrative divisions to help international readers.

 

5. It is recommended to provide an overall introduction to the status of the literature retrieved…

Response: We have reported the total number of articles retrieved, screened, and included, and added a PRISMA flowchart. A table summarizing keywords has also been provided (Table 1).

 

6. In Section 3.4, it is necessary to conduct discussions on the relationship between Kenya's forest management actions and… sustainable development globally.

Response: We expanded Section 3.4 to include links to SDGs, REDD+, UNFCCC climate commitments, and forest management experiences across Africa.

 

7. In Section 4, it is necessary to clearly point out similarities and differences between Kenya and other parts of the world…

Response: Section 4 was revised to highlight these comparisons explicitly. We added Table 2 and Table 3 which summarize Kenyan methods alongside global parallels.

 

8. The suggestions in the conclusion part are too simple.

Response: We expanded the conclusion into four parts: (1) Current Methods and Strengths/Limitations, (2) Gaps and Challenges, (3) Policy and Management Implications, (4) Future Research and Opportunities

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

This study reviewed biomass estimation techniques and their applications across diverse forest ecosystems in Kenya. The authors synthesized information on field-based, remote sensing, and machine-learning methods, highlighting their effectiveness, limitations, and integration potential. Thus, this manuscript addresses a topic relevant to the scope of the journal Land. However, the manuscript presents several issues that require minor revisions to improve clarity, conciseness, and logical flow. All points below should be carefully reviewed and considered. Therefore, the authors can critically revise the manuscript based on the comments and suggestions provided.

Review the formatting of the entire manuscript. For example, the authors' affiliations are not formatted correctly.

Lines 221-240 have different spacing from the rest of the text.

 

Abstract

Abstract is informative but too long. Needs clearer statement of review objectives. Contribution to literature could be emphasized.

Reduce excessive numerical details for conciseness.

Rephrase informal expressions (e.g., “hard to keep track of”).

Highlight novelty and integration of methods.

Condense conclusion for stronger impact.

 

Introduction

The authors presented a well-structured overview of biomass in Kenyan ecosystems.

Avoid redundancy: several sentences repeatedly emphasize the importance of biomass/carbon.

Some sentences are long; consider breaking them up to make them easier to read.

Emphasize how this review contributes beyond summarizing existing studies.

This section is missing some important information:

What are the most commonly used estimation methods in detail? Explore this, as the reader expects this from the text.

 

 

Material and Methods

Methods are systematic and well-described but some sentences are long.

Consider summarizing or tabulating the long list of keywords.

Clarify how many articles were retrieved, screened, and included after duplicates removal.

Merge repetitive sentences about data extraction and synthesis.

Specify whether any quality assessment of studies was conducted.

Simplify wordy phrases (e.g., “the study was extended to collect and assess…”).

I suggest inserting a flowchart used by the authors, considering the “n” in each selection.

 

3. Kenyan Forest Ecosystems

Very detailed description of forest types and structure; consider condensing repetitive statements on ecological importance and carbon storage.

Some sentences are overly long and could be simplified for clarity (e.g., paragraphs on Afromontane and mangrove forests).

Table 1 is informative; ensure consistency in formatting and units across forest types.

Repetition exists regarding threats to forests (deforestation, illegal logging, overgrazing); merge similar statements.

Overall, the section is comprehensive but could be streamlined to improve readability and focus on biomass estimation relevance.

The results in Figure 1 are already described in the text, so I don't see the need to include them here.

Line 199: Change to “3.2”

 

4. Biomass Estimation Methods in Forests

This section should be reduced by 25%.

Author Response

This study addresses a relevant topic… however, minor revisions are required.
Response: We carefully reviewed the entire manuscript for formatting, spacing, and logical flow. Affiliations have been corrected.

 

Abstract

• Too long; lacks clear objectives; contribution to literature unclear.

→ Abstract shortened to 195 words; objectives, findings, and novelty are now explicit.

• Reduce excessive numerical details.

→ Excessive numbers were removed.

• Rephrase informal expressions.

→ Informal wording replaced with scientific phrasing.

• Condense conclusion for stronger impact.

→ Conclusion statement now sharper and concise.

Introduction

• Avoid redundancy.

→ Repetitions on biomass importance were removed.

• Emphasize contribution beyond summarizing.

→ A new sentence highlights how this review integrates field, remote sensing, and machine learning perspectives in a Kenyan context.

• Missing commonly used methods.

→ We inserted an early explanation of common estimation methods.

Materials and Methods

• Sentences too long; keywords wordy.

→ Rewritten for conciseness; keywords placed in a table.

• Clarify the number of articles retrieved/screened.

→ Now explicitly stated; PRISMA flowchart inserted.

• Quality assessment is not clear.

→ Clarified that only peer-reviewed, Kenya-focused articles from the past 15 years (2009 – 2024) were included.

Kenyan Forest Ecosystems (Section 3)

• Too detailed; condense repetitive statements.

→ Section shortened by merging overlapping ecological descriptions and threats.

• Figure 1 unnecessary.

→ Moved to Appendix.

• Ensure table consistency.

→ Table 2 reformatted for consistency.

Biomass Estimation Methods (Section 4)

• Reduce by 25%.

→ Section condensed.

• Repetition reduced; focus on comparative insights.

→ Tables 3 and 4 are used to present detailed comparisons concisely.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has modified the questions in the previous edition, but it is suggested that the author should make a comprehensive review and modification of some details, such as the following details:(1) this paper is submitted to the Journal Land, but the header and footer of the manuscript are written with Journal Forests, and the year is 2024.

(2) The text in Figure 1 is largely illegible. Please revise it once more.

(3) The title of Table 3 refers to the year 2025. Please verify which study listed in the table corresponds to 2025.

(4) For lines 531 - 532, it seems that a complete reference needs to be added for the "Forest Conservation and Management Act (2016)".

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their continued constructive comments, which have helped us further refine the manuscript. Below we provide a point-by-point response. Reviewer comments are in italics, and our responses follow.

 

Reviewer 1:

1. This paper is submitted to the Journal Land, but the header and footer of the manuscript are written with Journal Forests, and the year is 2024.

Response: Corrected. The manuscript headers and footers have been updated to reflect the journal Land and the correct year.

2. The text in Figure 1 is largely illegible. Please revise it once more.
   Response: Revised. Figure 1 (PRISMA flow diagram) has been redrawn with a larger, clearer font and simplified formatting to ensure full legibility.
3. The title of Table 3 refers to the year 2025. Please verify which study listed in the table corresponds to 2025.

Response: Corrected. The year reference in the title of Table 3 has been checked and updated.

4. For lines 531–532, it seems that a complete reference needs to be added for the "Forest Conservation and Management Act (2016)".

Response: Added. The complete reference has now been included:

“Republic of Kenya. Forest Conservation and Management Act No. 34 of 2016;

Kenya Law: Nairobi, Kenya, 2016. Available online:

https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2016/34/eng@2022-12-31 (accessed on 9 September 2025).”

 

We thank the reviewers for their continued constructive comments, which have helped us further refine the manuscript. Below we provide a point-by-point response. Reviewer comments are in italics, and our responses follow.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I see that the authors have addressed all the revisions I requested and paid attention to the comments. After analyzing the changes, I found that, in each subsection:

General aspects: The manuscript has been revised in terms of clarity, formatting, and logical flow, which contributes positively to the reading experience.

Abstract: The text has been significantly improved. The revised version is more concise, with objectives, contributions, and results clearly presented, in line with the initial recommendation.

Introduction: Reductions in redundancy and the insertion of a clearer explanation of the study's contribution have strengthened this section. The addition of common estimation methods also enriches the context.

Materials and Methods: The details on article selection and the inclusion of the PRISMA flowchart meet the request for transparency. The quality assessment has been clarified.

Results/Specific sections: The condensation of the section on Kenyan forest ecosystems and the reorganization of tables and figures have made the text more objective. The removal of redundancy and reduction of the section on biomass methods are also appropriate.

Minor aspects: I also recommend a final review of the English language for fine adjustments to style and textual fluency.

Overall, I consider that the revisions have addressed the proposed recommendations. The manuscript now presents greater clarity, objectivity, and scientific contribution and can be accepted for publication in Land.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

We thank the reviewers for their continued constructive comments, which have helped us further refine the manuscript. Below we provide a point-by-point response. Reviewer comments are in italics, and our responses follow.

We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation and acknowledgment of the revisions.

 

Comment: I also recommend a final review of the English language for fine adjustments to style and textual fluency.

Response: We appreciate this recommendation. A final proofreading of the manuscript was carried out, and several adjustments were made to improve style, grammar, and clarity. These refinements have improved textual fluency and consistency throughout the manuscript without altering its scientific content. Specifically:

• Overly long sentences were split for readability. For example, in the Introduction, the sentence “Globally, numerous techniques have been developed for biomass assessment, ranging from direct destructive sampling to advanced remote sensing and machine learning approaches, and these methods vary in accuracy, cost, and applicability depending on forest type and management context” was divided into two shorter sentences.
• Unclear or wordy phrases were simplified. For example:
  • “Human activities, including agriculture, agricultural land conversion, and logging, have led to forest fragmentation” was revised to “Agriculture, land conversion, and logging have fragmented forests.”
  • “By utilizing the distinct benefits of each methodology, researchers can surmount the constraints associated with employing any singular method” was revised to “Integrating methods helps overcome the limitations of using any single approach.”
• Informal or imprecise wording was made more precise. For example:
  • “crucial in the hydrological cycle” was changed to “essential for regulating hydrological cycles.”
  • “forest function is assessed at both the stand and landscape levels” was changed to “forest function is evaluated at stand and landscape scales.”
• Terminology was standardized. “Above-Ground Biomass” is now consistently abbreviated as AGB after its first mention, and “remote sensing techniques” is used consistently instead of switching with “RS methods.”
• Excessive qualifiers were reduced. For example, “highly efficient in long-term carbon storage, underscoring the need for detailed assessments of all carbon pools” was revised to “efficient long-term carbon storage, highlighting the need for comprehensive carbon pool assessments.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx