Measuring Understory Fire Effects from Space: Canopy Change in Response to Tropical Understory Fire and What This Means for Applications of GEDI to Tropical Forest Fire
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article sounds interesting.
Minor notes regarding:
1) citation style (use [...]: eg. lines: 72, 162-172, 281, 285, 302, 321,364, 473, 475, 496,
2) error with figures numbering (starting from 6) - check also references
3) Table 3: use smaller font
4) line 225: meaning of B (black line?), ambiguity with row B
Author Response
Thank you
1) Fixed the error on line 72 and 475. The other instances are not in-text citations but discussions of different papers.
2) Done
3) Done
4) this was a holdover from a previous version, thanks for catching that.
Reviewer 2 Report
It has been a delight to review the manuscript, "Measuring understory fire effects from space: Canopy change in response to tropical understory fire and what this means for applications of GEDI for a tropical forest fire."
Overall the research conducted is well thought of and rigorously done. However, I have certain concerns as far as the manuscript structure and presentation are concerned.
First and foremost is the language of the manuscript. The manuscript is written in the direct sense. It lacks the standard language as far as scientific manuscript writing is concerned. Instead of asking questions and making them as the objectives, the correct way is to straightaway declare this is the objective.
For example, instead of objective 1, How does vertical canopy structure change in response to understory fire, the correct way is to write it as "assessing the influence of understory fire on the vertical canopy structure."
Similarly, in each question and section, a more scientific way of presenting this research is required. It must not appear as a lecture in the classroom, it must be presented in a way to aid the replicability of this work. The language has to be lucid. Long sentences must be avoided.
Overall whole of the manuscript requires substantial changes in the structure, language, and presentation.
Moreover, the methodology section is very weak. The authors are suggested to improve it considerably to aid in the replicability of this work. A methodology flowchart would be helpful.
Results must be presented in a more clear and concise, and lucid way. Please avoid question and answer type of language.
Further, discuss the limitations of this work and future scope.
I hope that the authors will work on these suggestions in full letter and spirit.
Best of luck.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper focused on the measurement of under-story fire with remote sensing, which is a challenging task, and find the mixed results for applications of on-orbit GEDI data to tropical fire. I think this is a meaningful study for forest fire safety. The manuscript can be improved in the following aspects.
1. Too many keywords
2. The format of the tables like Table 1 and Table 2 should be revised.
3. How to exclude other factors affecting the vertical canopy structure?
Author Response
- There are currently 6 key words (of the possible 3 to 10). The formatting has been revised
- Tables have been reformatted.
- I am not sure I fully understand this comment, but we try to address this in our stratified random sampling to account for the influence of edge effect on the canopy structure.
Reviewer 4 Report
It's a good study and a sound paper. However, I recommend enlarging the summary to attract more people to pay attention to the publication
Author Response
We have tried to modify the abstract to be more broadly interesting, and added more to the discussion section about future directions.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for considering my suggestions and other reviewers. The revised version is much better.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for incorporating all the suggestions.
Reviewer 4 Report
Good work according to the suggestions you have completed
