PONE-D-24-57180Methods for Extracting Rubber Tree Parameters and Estimating Carbon Storage Using Airborne LiDAR Point Cloud DataPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript must be corrected in all points indicated by the reviewers, such as:

1. The title is inappropriate as it lacks an academic summary of the work. A mere introduction of the methodology fails to effectively encapsulate the thesis's theme.

2. The introduction lacks a clear statement of the research objectives and further clarification is needed regarding the editorial contributions of this work.

3. The authors seem to have overlooked the comparison of their method with others, particularly in the discussion section, where a comprehensive discussion on the differences in accuracy, applicability, and other aspects of this work relative to other methods is missing.

4. Presenting part of the content in Section 4.3 in a tabular form would be more effective.

5. The conclusion section is incomplete. While the authors mention an accuracy analysis, they fail to report the results of this analysis.

6. The authors state in the conclusion that their method "provides a reliable solution," which lacks factual support. At least one corresponding validation of accuracy or applicability is required.

7. The proposed method for estimating Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) using the east-west crown diameter is innovative. However, it is unclear how significantly it improves upon existing DBH estimation methods.

8. The study evaluates three segmentation techniques, ultimately selecting the best-performing method. The paper does not convincingly demonstrate a groundbreaking advancement over previous work.

9.The use of LiDAR for biomass and carbon storage estimation is well established. The novelty lies more in its specific adaptation to rubber trees rather than in a fundamentally new approach.

10. Some sentences are overly complex, making the paper difficult to read. For instance, the abstract and introduction contain long, dense sentences that could be more concise.

11. Some descriptions are unnecessarily repetitive or overly detailed. The methodology section, for example, includes long explanations of LiDAR operation that may not be necessary for the intended audience.

12. While not abundant, some minor grammatical inconsistencies and awkward phrasing are present.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 24 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Claudionor Ribeiro da Silva

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements: 

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf .    

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

 [This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 62266026); the High Score Special Project: Yunnan Provincial Government Comprehensive Governance Deep Application and Scale-up Industrialization Demonstration Project. (Grant Nos. 89-Y50G31-9001-22/23).]. 

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

6. We note that Figure 2 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

A. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

B. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

7. Please upload a copy of Figure 9, to which you refer in your text on page 12. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. The title is inappropriate as it lacks an academic summary of the work. A mere introduction of the methodology fails to effectively encapsulate the thesis's theme.

2. The introduction lacks a clear statement of the research objectives and further clarification is needed regarding the editorial contributions of this work.

3. The authors seem to have overlooked the comparison of their method with others, particularly in the discussion section, where a comprehensive discussion on the differences in accuracy, applicability, and other aspects of this work relative to other methods is missing.

4. Presenting part of the content in Section 4.3 in a tabular form would be more effective.

5. The conclusion section is incomplete. While the authors mention an accuracy analysis, they fail to report the results of this analysis.

6. The authors state in the conclusion that their method "provides a reliable solution," which lacks factual support. At least one corresponding validation of accuracy or applicability is required. If the authors wish to prove the reliability of their results, they need to conduct repeated experiments in at least three different applicable regions, as a single experiment cannot account for the impact of randomness.

Reviewer #2: The paper may be considered for publication upon the incorporation of the following comments and suggestions.

Novelty Assessment:

The paper presents a method for extracting rubber tree parameters and estimating carbon storage using airborne LiDAR. The study has some novel aspects, but its originality could be questioned in certain areas:

1. DBH Estimation Method: The proposed method for estimating Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) using the east-west crown diameter is innovative. However, it is unclear how significantly it improves upon existing DBH estimation methods. A comparison with alternative regression models or machine learning-based approaches would strengthen the claim of novelty.

2. LiDAR-Based Tree Segmentation: The study evaluates three segmentation techniques (CHM-based, direct point cloud-based, and seed point-based), ultimately selecting the best-performing method. While this is valuable, segmentation methods for tree structure analysis have been widely studied. The paper does not convincingly demonstrate a groundbreaking advancement over previous work.

3. Carbon Storage Estimation: The use of LiDAR for biomass and carbon storage estimation is well established. The study provides an application in rubber plantations, but similar methods have been applied to other forest types. The novelty lies more in its specific adaptation to rubber trees rather than in a fundamentally new approach.

Academic English Assessment:

1. Some sentences are overly complex, making the paper difficult to read. For instance, the abstract and introduction contain long, dense sentences that could be more concise. Breaking complex ideas into smaller, more digestible parts would improve readability.

2. While technical terminology is expected in a scientific paper, some descriptions are unnecessarily repetitive or overly detailed. The methodology section, for example, includes long explanations of LiDAR operation that may not be necessary for the intended audience.

3. Grammar & Stylistic Issues: While not abundant, some minor grammatical inconsistencies and awkward phrasing are present. Examples include:

"Given that airborne LiDAR technology cannot directly obtain the diameter at breast height (DBH) parameters of rubber forests..." → This sentence could be more direct: "Since airborne LiDAR cannot directly measure DBH in rubber forests..."

"The study results indicate: (1) The BB4 quad-copter drone equipped with the AU20 LiDAR measurement system can rapidly acquire point cloud data from artificial rubber forests..." → Listing results with numbers in the abstract is not ideal for readability.

Section wise comments:

Title

The title is clear and informative, but it could be more concise. Consider simplifying it to "Extracting Rubber Tree Parameters and Estimating Carbon Storage Using Airborne LiDAR."

The phrase "Methods for Extracting" might be unnecessary, as the study itself presents a specific approach.

Abstract:

Consider simplifying technical jargon to enhance readability.

A brief mention of potential limitations or future applications could strengthen the conclusion.

Instead of listing results in a numbered format, integrate them into sentences for smoother readability.

Introduction:

The introduction provides a strong justification for the study by linking it to global challenges. However, the transition from global climate issues to LiDAR technology could be smoother.

More discussion on why previous methods are insufficient would strengthen the rationale for the study.

Literature Review

The discussion of past research is thorough, but the review would benefit from a clearer structure. For example, separating literature into subtopics (e.g., carbon sequestration methods, LiDAR in forestry, DBH estimation techniques) could improve readability.

It would be useful to highlight more gaps in existing studies to further justify the research contribution.

Methodology:

The methodology is detailed and technically sound, but a schematic diagram outlining the workflow could improve clarity.

The description of UAV and LiDAR specifications is useful, but some sections (e.g., details about software and settings) may be overly detailed for a general audience. Consider summarizing technical parameters in a table.

It would be helpful to justify why three methods were chosen and whether hybrid approaches were considered.

Results

Some figures and tables could be better formatted to emphasize key comparisons.

A discussion on why the best-performing method outperformed others would add value.

The estimation of DBH using crown diameter is a novel contribution, but potential sources of error or limitations in different forest conditions should be acknowledged.

Discussion:

The discussion effectively contextualizes the results, but it could better compare findings with previous research. Were similar DBH estimation approaches used elsewhere?

The limitations of airborne LiDAR are noted, but suggestions for overcoming them (e.g., combining LiDAR with ground-truthing) is essential.

Future research directions are mentioned, but expanding on how machine learning or AI could enhance segmentation would be insightful.

Conclusion

The conclusion effectively summarizes findings, but it could better emphasize the practical applications of the study. How can this method be scaled for different regions?

The impact of the study on carbon sequestration policy or rubber plantation management could be further highlighted.

A brief discussion on potential next steps (e.g., testing the model in different forest types) would add depth.

References:

Incorporating recent references, particularly those related to machine learning-based studies, is essential for providing readers with a better understanding of current research trends."

Formatting should be double-checked for consistency, especially regarding journal abbreviations and citation styles.

The paper requires substantial revisions in the following areas.

1. Clarify Novelty: The paper presents incremental improvements rather than a fundamentally new approach. The novelty claim needs to be reinforced by comparing the proposed DBH estimation method with other regression-based or machine-learning models. Otherwise, the study risks being viewed as a case study rather than a significant scientific breakthrough.

2. Strengthen the Literature Review: The paper discusses previous work but does not sufficiently highlight how this study differs from existing methods. What specific gaps does this study fill? If similar segmentation methods have been applied in other forestry contexts, why is this study different?

3. Improve Readability & Academic Tone: The paper should undergo careful revision to simplify overly complex sentences, remove redundant explanations, and improve clarity. This will enhance accessibility without compromising technical depth.

4. Address Limitations More Explicitly: The discussion acknowledges the limitations of LiDAR, but the paper should go further by suggesting specific solutions. How can occlusion issues be mitigated? Would integrating multispectral or hyperspectral data improve results? How does tree density affect segmentation accuracy?

5. Provide a More Convincing Justification for Method Selection: The study evaluates three segmentation methods but does not clearly justify why these three were chosen over others. Were deep learning-based segmentation methods considered? If not, why?

Final Verdict

This study presents a valuable and technically rigorous contribution to LiDAR-based forestry analysis.

While the study has merit, its novelty is moderate rather than groundbreaking. The paper is written in standard academic English, but its readability could be improved. Strengthening the novelty claim, refining the discussion, and improving writing clarity will significantly enhance its impact and publication potential.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Dr. A Salim Khan

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-57180R1Extracting Rubber Tree Parameters and Estimating Carbon Storage Using Airborne LiDARPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 21 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Claudionor Ribeiro da Silva

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Abstract

1) Please make the introductory section of the abstract concise, it should be summarized in 3-4 lines

2) The abstracts section is a much longer, need to shorter

3) The abstract much cover the introduction and problem statement in 4-5 lines, the methodology (2-3 lines), major results/findings and discussion (4-6 lines) and importance/implication/application/conclusion (2-3 lines).

Introduction

1) Please include some numerical data with respect forest and climate change the following articles might be helpful

2) Yin, Y., Gong, H., Chen, Z., Tian, X., Wang, Y., Wang, Z.,... Cui, Z. (2025). Underestimated sequestration of soil organic carbon in China. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 23(2), 373-379. doi: 10.1007/s10311-024-01813-4

Adnan Ahmad1†, Shahid Ahmad4†, Ghulam Nabi*, Alam Zeb2, Muhammad Nawaz Rajpar2, Sami Ullah2, Faisal Khalid1,2, Mujibur Rahman5, Qijing Liu 3, Kuiling Zu6, Xinle Guo and Kunyuan Wanghe (2022). Carbon Emissions With Forest Cover Change and Wood Harvest in the Dry Temperate Region of Pakistan Between 1908 and 2015: Front. Environ. Sci. 10:876225. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.876225

3) Please include some numerical information on the status of forest carbon sequestration at global as well as China

4) Pleases enrich the introduction section with updated literature that why the use of technology and computing is needed in forest measurement. The following article might me helpful

Ma, X., Ding, J., Wang, T., Lu, L., Sun, H., Zhang, F.,... Nurmemet, I. (2023). A Pixel Dichotomy Coupled Linear Kernel-Driven Model for Estimating Fractional Vegetation Cover in Arid Areas From High-Spatial-Resolution Images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 61. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2023.3289093.

Sun, H., Ma, X., Liu, Y., Zhou, G., Ding, J., Lu, L.,... Zhang, F. (2024). A New Multiangle Method for Estimating Fractional Biocrust Coverage From Sentinel-2 Data in Arid Areas. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 62, 1-15. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2024.3361249

Zhou, G., Zhou, X., Li, W., Zhao, D., Song, B., Xu, C.,... Zou, L. (2022). Development of a Lightweight Single-Band Bathymetric LiDAR. Remote Sensing, 14(22), 5880. doi: 10.3390/rs14225880

Wang, B., Yang, M., Cao, P., & Liu, Y. (2025). A novel embedded cross framework for high-resolution salient object detection. Applied Intelligence, 55(4), 277. doi: 10.1007/s10489-024-06073-x

Zhou, G., Xu, J., Hu, H., Liu, Z., Zhang, H., Xu, C.,... Zhao, Y. (2023). Off-Axis Four-Reflection Optical Structure for Lightweight Single-Band Bathymetric LiDAR. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 61. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2023.3298531

Li, R., Wang, Y., Sun, S., Zhang, Y., Ding, F.,... Gao, H. (2025). UE-Extractor: A Grid-to-Point Ground Extraction Framework for Unstructured Environments Using Adaptive Grid Projection. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 10(6), 5991-5998. doi: 10.1109/LRA.2025.3563127

5) Problem statement and justification section need modification supported by literature

Discussion and conclusion

1) The discussion section need modification, the statement that belongs to author must be supported by the empirical data and those does not belong to author, a sources of citation might be provided. Also how the present findings are consistent or inconsistent with other must be provided in a logical, coherent and connected way . The following articles might be useful

Ma, X., Ding, J., Wang, T., Lu, L., Sun, H., Zhang, F.,... Nurmemet, I. (2023). A Pixel Dichotomy Coupled Linear Kernel-Driven Model for Estimating Fractional Vegetation Cover in Arid Areas From High-Spatial-Resolution Images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 61. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2023.3289093.

Sun, H., Ma, X., Liu, Y., Zhou, G., Ding, J., Lu, L.,... Zhang, F. (2024). A New Multiangle Method for Estimating Fractional Biocrust Coverage From Sentinel-2 Data in Arid Areas. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 62, 1-15. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2024.3361249

Zhou, G., Zhou, X., Li, W., Zhao, D., Song, B., Xu, C.,... Zou, L. (2022). Development of a Lightweight Single-Band Bathymetric LiDAR. Remote Sensing, 14(22), 5880. doi: 10.3390/rs14225880

Wang, B., Yang, M., Cao, P., & Liu, Y. (2025). A novel embedded cross framework for high-resolution salient object detection. Applied Intelligence, 55(4), 277. doi: 10.1007/s10489-024-06073-x

Zhou, G., Xu, J., Hu, H., Liu, Z., Zhang, H., Xu, C.,... Zhao, Y. (2023). Off-Axis Four-Reflection Optical Structure for Lightweight Single-Band Bathymetric LiDAR. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 61. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2023.3298531

Li, R., Wang, Y., Sun, S., Zhang, Y., Ding, F.,... Gao, H. (2025). UE-Extractor: A Grid-to-Point Ground Extraction Framework for Unstructured Environments Using Adaptive Grid Projection. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 10(6), 5991-5998. doi: 10.1109/LRA.2025.3563127

2) Pleases include a limitation section in conclusion, also provide the importance of your study

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Adnan Ahmad

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Extracting Rubber Tree Parameters and Estimating Carbon Storage Using Airborne LiDAR

PONE-D-24-57180R2

Dear Dr. Rao,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Claudionor Ribeiro da Silva

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank the author team for their revisions and clarifications to the paper. The current manuscript is acceptable for publication.

Reviewer #3: The MS isuch improved, please have a look carefully on spelling and Grammer mistakes , also please croesscheck the citation and references

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********