This article develops a tool to measure morphological traits in leaves. I believe that providing a convenient and accurate tool is beneficial to the scientific community and is in line with the aims of the MEE. I therefore recommend this article for publication after some revisions. I have no concerns about the methodology, results of the study. My comments are only intended to help improve the quality of the manuscript.
1. Line 91. licor 3100 does not appear to be able to be used to measure LAI. also, LAI does not appear to be relevant to this article.
2. The authors need to consider optimizing the organization of Fig. 1, which is now not intuitive enough.
3. I would suggest adding some text to describe how the authors manually measured the morphological traits. I don't seem to find those descriptions in the methodology, and I do wonder because manual measurement of some traits seems to be more difficult. Those web sampling data also need to be briefly described.
4. The pixel units in Fig. 2a's statistics table make it challenging to understand. If possible, could it be converted to familiar units?
5. For the figs of specific workflows (figs 2, 3), I would suggest that the figs be referenced first in the methodology before describing the specific steps, so that the reader understands more quickly what the topic of the paragraph is. Right now, the author writes in an order that describes the specific workflow first (interspersed with references to the Appendix, which may lead the reader to the appendix before even looking at the main fig), and then leads the reader to the fig at the end of the paragraph.
6. I would suggest adding a figure or table to summarize the results in lines 198-203, before fig 4, the paragraph that is supposed to be the most important result of the article, i.e., the accuracy of the validation of the method proposed in the text. When jumping from METHOD to RESULTS, it is a little strange that fig 4 is the first figure seen. The authors should be aware that many readers do not read the text carefully, so a good organization of the article allows the reader to get most of the critical information the authors want to convey by looking only at the figs and tables of the article.
7. Fig 4 seems to be a subsidiary result rather than a primary result.
8. In contrast to fig 4, I am more interested in whether there is a difference in the ability of the authors' method between different species (or different leaf types). Now that the authors only give an average validation result, I think the authors could have added a categorization discussion in the results section. The authors mention that their method is also applicable to dry leaves, which is a good place to show validation results for dry leaves. It seems that the authors did not include needles in their validation sample, if so, the authors should have talked about the possible limitations and applicability of their method in the discussion.
9. Fig 5. There is a method called 'Rstudio'? I think there is a typo.