The Influence of Cross-Section Thickness on Diameter at Breast Height Estimation from Point Cloud
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments:
This research attempted to find the optimal cross-section thickness for DBH calculation with laser points. The topic is interesting and meaningful to some extent. However, the authors did not demonstrate enough information in this manuscript. For example, what is the optimal cross-section thickness for a certain tree species and in a certain situation of data quality? In the current version of the manuscript, the conclusions are unclear and useless. So I suggest a major revision before publishing.
Specific comments:
Abstract:
- Which thickness was the best for the cross-section in your tests? Or What's your suggestion for selecting a better thickness? The authors should include this information in the Abstract.
- The diameters along a tree stem from stump to top are changing continuously in most instances. So I’m not surprised that the DBH estimation was not significantly different among 1-10 cm cross-sections because it has only 10 cm variation in tree height. Similarly, I’m also not surprised that the DBH estimation was considerably different, as it has a 90 cm variation in tree height. I think 10 cm variation and 90 cm variation were not comparable and inappropriate to be the most important conclusion of this research.
P1L20 What does the "However" mean in this context?
P2L53-54. Actually, I’m not convinced that the optimization of cross-section thickness for DBH estimation is a vital problem. For me, the thinner the better for the cross-section thickness as long as the data density and quality allows.
Figure5. I cannot get any useful information from this figure. What information does the author want to express? No fitting lines and 1:1 lines and RSEM showed in this figure. I know the reference DBH and Estimated DBH were highly correlated with each other, but which is the most correlated cross-section thickness?
In part 3.1, what is the purpose of estimating the number of points in the cross-section?
Table2 The 60 cm is the best cross-section thickness for European beech (lowest ew)? How did you explain it? The 100 cm is the best cross-section thickness for Sessile Oak (lowest ew)? Why?
P10L239-256 These blocks of words should belong to the Introduction part, right?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you sincerely for constructive comments and your effort spent in reviewing our manuscript. The changes made based on your review definitely move the manuscript in the good direction.
The answers are submitted as a word document.
Kind regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
There is a lot in this paper and in its present format is challenging to read though I found it very interesting and after several reads managed to grasp its substance. Some of my feedback may appear negative but it is designed to strengthen the paper. Most of my comments relate to presentation rather than substance. Other comments seek clarification. Generally, the paper would benefit from more emphasis on the uniqueness, significance, rigour, and potential impact of the work. This should be emphasised in the abstract and reinforced occasionally throughout the paper. I think this would increase the interest of readers. I have attached a marked up ADOBE pdf of the current version with comments that I hope the authors will find helpful. I have no doubt that if its comments are addressed my scores above would be higher and I appreciate that in its current format it is a draft. I could go on but the details are in the document attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you sincerely for constructive comments and your effort spent in reviewing our manuscript. The changes made based on your review definitely move the manuscript in the good direction.
The answers are submitted as a word document.
Kind regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The study is of great interest for the forestry research and its aim was to provide insights of accuracy DBH etimations by the use of terrestrial laser scanning methods. The materials and methods sections are well founded and the results prove by the use of statistical methods the hypotheses of the study, thus confirming the replicability of other tree species.
I have one specific comment regarding the sections Appendix B and C - I suggest to the authors to indicate the significance of bold numbers in the description of the tables.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you sincerely for your time to reviewing our manuscript
The answer is below.
R3.1 I have one specific comment regarding the sections Appendix B and C - I suggest to the authors to indicate the significance of bold numbers in the description of the tables.
A3.1 The description has been included.
Kind regards
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been improved according to the reviewer's comments, and queries have also been carefully responded to.
