- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 2 On “Continuous observation of leaf area index at Fluxnet-Canada sites”
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 201S (2015) 633
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer review report
Peer review report 2 On “Continuous observation of leaf area index at Fluxnet-Canada sites”
Original Submission Recommendation Minor Revision Comments to Author: This is a well-written, succinct paper on a topic (estimating LAI) that many people will find interesting and useful. It needs some very minor editing for English. My only concern that I think can be easily addressed is the use of statistics. Given the way the text speaks well of the new
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.01.016. 0168-1923/$ – see front matter http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.08.170
methodology, I was a little surprised to get to Fig 1 and not see such great agreement. Fig 2 does indicate higher r2ˆ value for the new technique, however the slope is if anything a little more in error. I would like to see a little more careful statistical analysis and critical interpretation. Perhaps a RMSE between the two methods and the measured data would give a better sense of how well each one does. Anonymous Available online 24 August 2015
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer review report
Peer review report 2 On “Continuous observation of leaf area index at Fluxnet-Canada sites”
Original Submission Recommendation Minor Revision Comments to Author: This is a well-written, succinct paper on a topic (estimating LAI) that many people will find interesting and useful. It needs some very minor editing for English. My only concern that I think can be easily addressed is the use of statistics. Given the way the text speaks well of the new
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.01.016. 0168-1923/$ – see front matter http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.08.170
methodology, I was a little surprised to get to Fig 1 and not see such great agreement. Fig 2 does indicate higher r2ˆ value for the new technique, however the slope is if anything a little more in error. I would like to see a little more careful statistical analysis and critical interpretation. Perhaps a RMSE between the two methods and the measured data would give a better sense of how well each one does. Anonymous Available online 24 August 2015