|The authors have improved the manuscript and have answered my previous comments. I recommend publication after some minor changes listed below. I do not need to see the manuscript again after revisions, I believe it will be suited for publication. Literature has been included that was previously missing and the general readability has been improved. The Results and Discussion have been significantly improved and the limitations are clearly stated. I believe some of the figures have been edited and they are much easier to understand in the new version.|
1. I think the authors may want to update the key results in the Abstract with the revised results. For example, the statement “the results emphasize the importance of tree species and distribution on snow depth patterns.” is too general. It would be beneficial to include some quantifications.
2. [L14] In the Abstract, please provide a study period of the TLS data collection (e.g. winter 2016-2017).
3. [L15-17] I am not sure if the specific algorithms’ names such as the Marker-controlled watershed algorithm and Multi-scale Model to Model Cloud Comparison (M3C2) algorithm should be included in the abstract. Because the title implies interactions between tree canopy and snow depth as the main objective, “multiple linear regression and decision tree” might be better to be included here as methods used to quantify the relationships.
4. [L65-70] There are more recent studies estimating snow depth using the UAS-based lidar and photogrammetric techniques that would be helpful for potential readers with this manuscript.
- Lee, S.; Park, J.; Choi, E.; Kim, D. Factors Influencing the Accuracy of Shallow Snow Depth Measured Using UAV-Based Photogrammetry. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 828. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13040828
- Jacobs, J. M., Hunsaker, A. G., Sullivan, F. B., Palace, M., Burakowski, E. A., Herrick, C., & Cho, E. (2021). Shallow snow depth mapping with unmanned aerial systems lidar observations: A case study in Durham, New Hampshire, United States. The Cryosphere, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2020-37
5. [L242] Provide the full reference (ESRI, 2015) in the list.
6. [L309-310] I would suggest providing a range of the snow depth in text with Figures 5 and 6 and then describing differences in snow depths between the open and under the canopy.
7. [L329] It would be good to add an intro sentence here for this subsection.
8. [L330] “foliage height diversity” is already defined. Would you check all predefined terms throughout the manuscript?
9. [L345] “in open areas”
10. [L596 – 598] The final statement of the Conclusions looks too overreaching statement. Please rephrase or remove. Also, GEDI does not define earlier.
11. Tables 2, 4, and 5: For p-value, it would be good to simply state “< 0.001” or something like that for extremely low values. Please add a description of how “Not significant” was determined (e.g. p-value > 0.001) in the caption.
12. Table A4: Be consistent with the decimal number.