Study on Spatial-Distribution Characteristics Based on Fire-Spot Data in Northern China
Raquel Partelli-Feltrin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Suggestion to the authors
1) check the grammar of the paper
2) in line 155 you must use the initials of the cities
3. In the conclusion not considering orographic effects.
4.- Explain the cause of the decrease, either due to a decrease in forest cover or due to the implemented laws.
5.- Check the following documents for reference.
Davis, K. T. et al. Wildfires and climate change push low-elevation forests across a critical climate threshold for tree regeneration. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 116, 6193–6198 (2019).
Mendez-Tejeda, Rafael; Santos-Corrada, María; et al. (2015). Environmental and Economic Impact of Forest Fires in Puerto Rico 2013-2014. Open Journal of Forestry, 5, 353-363. doi: 10.4236/ojf.2015.54030.
Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW (2006) Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. Forest wildfire activity. Science 313(5789):940–943.
National Interagency Fire Center (2016) Total wildland fires and acres (1960-2015). Available at https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
As stated in the manuscript, identifying the spatial and temporal distribution patterns of fires can help to manage and prevent wildfires in these regions of China. However the manuscript needs an extensive English editing to be more clear, concise and coherent. Include only the necessary text. Make sure you include references to support some statements.
Specific comments:
Line 12 - It needs some clarification which type of forest ecosystem are those. Fire-dependent forests?
Line 12 - it is stated that the study analyses the fire characteristics in China. I believe you meant the spatial and temporal distribution pattern of fire and not the fire characteristics such as fire behavior. Please clarify that.
Line 27-28 - include the most relevant hotspots results.
Line 38 - not all forest fires are destructive.
Line 39 - not sure what you mean by "ecology", be more specific.
Line 40 - Fires can impact plant species biodiversity in forests. However it is not clear how the decrease in trees can impact the evolution of the forest biodiversity. Please clarify.
Line 41 - "forest fires are widely distributed in forest ecosystems...". Not sure what you mean with that sentence, please clarify.
Line 65-66 -include a reference showing the temperature and trend in these regions.
Line 75 - It is not clear what you mean by "fire variability and trend". Fire occurence?
Line 93 and 95 - Avoid start the sentence with the [number of citation]. It does not read well.
Line 99 - See comment for line 12 about "forest fires characteristics".
Line 103- "administrative areas"?
Line 121, 128, 134, and 139 - people not familiar with the species that are commun in these provinces will not know which species are the "etc". Include all the main tree species.
Line 207-208 - Please clarify what you mean by "the magnitude is not large"
Line 218 - Characteristics of fire season and month variation section: Include only the results in this sections. Any explanation how you acquired that results should be moved to "Material and Methods".
Line 221 - see comment for line 12.
Line 228, 232, 234 - include the figure number to the statements that describe data from a figure.
Line 250 - italicize L(d) in this section
Line 269 - see comment for line 218.
Line 319 - I would avoid to say "certain error" and maybe use "overestimated the fire spots due to the resolution limits" or something similar to that.
Line 343 - briefly explain why the increase in microbial activity can cause fire.
Line 353 - which previous studies? Include references.
Line 396 - 398 - no need to describe what it was done.
Line 404 - "Forest fires..." sentence is out of place.
Conclusion section - Instead of saying "on the one hand" and "on the other hand" just state the benefits of the paper.
Figure 2 - (a) and (b) delete the "times" in Y axis. Check the fig caption "Distribution and spatial distribution..." , not sure what the first "distribution means.
Figure 3 - The reader would benefit if one column has all the fire spots distribution of 2020 and the other column with the 2021. Thus we could see better the difference of fire spots in 2020 and 2021.
Figure 4 - Delete times in Y axis. Check the caption - "map" (?)
Figure 5 - The caption could be rewited like: "Spatial distribution pattern of fire spots in (a-b) Heilongjiang (a-b), Jilin (c-d) , Liaoning (e-f), and Hebei (g-h) in 2020 and 2021, respectively. "
Figure 6 - The caption can be more clear and concise. See example in comment for fig.5
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper is very well written and reflects solid research. The only methodological concern I have is the comparison of provinces based on raw numbers. I believe the results should be normalized by the forest area of each province. That does not change the spatial distribution and hot spot analysis, so I see it as a minor flaw.
As I have noted in several places in the manuscript, I think the conclusions are stated to definitively based on the short period of study.
Also this paper seems aimed at a policy of strict fire prevention and early aggressive control. That is a policy advocated strongly by C.C. Andrews in the early 20th century following catastrophic fire in the US Midwest that formed his opinions and his ideas formed US policy for nearly 100 years. Given the similarity of forest genera and general climate of the region hos ideas may be relevant to NE China. Current US thinking, which has been formulated in the mountainous western US suggests complete suppression as he advocated creates ecological changes and eventually makes fire suppression impossible.
In general the paper seems to stress the most modern technology and does not mention data collected by older technology. This is fine to introduce the technology but is justified only as a new tool to supplement current policy.
General Christopher C. Andrews: Leading the Minnesota Forestry Revolution
Anna M. Rice The History Teacher Vol. 36, No. 1 (Nov., 2002), pp. 91-115 (25 pages)
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
There was an improvement in English from the previous manuscript version. But some corrections and clarifications need to be made for better understanding and reading.
Please consider the following comments:
Line 10: Drop the word seriously and just say “…. and can affect the structure …”
Line 13 – 16: The second sentence is saying the same thing as the first but with a more details. Make it as one sentence.
Line 29 – 30: As a response to my previous comment you included the hotspots areas of those provinces (Point 3 in response to reviewer). Instead of including the name of the hotspots, I would suggest to include some characteristics or something relevant (if any) that made them the hotspot to those areas that made them to be the hotspot. If there is not, you can just delete the sentences from line 20 to 30 (“Based on this, … method. For Heilongjiang … Chengde.”).
In addition to the specific comments below, revise the introduction for a better flow. Try to use synonym for “forest fires” when possible avoiding repeatedly use the word “forest fires” and forest.
Line 39 -41. This sentence need clarification. As a suggestion you can say something like: “Forest fires play an important role in forest regeneration, succession and evolution. However, fires are cyclical, sudden and can pose…”. As a note, fire does not play a key role in all forests so you can be more specific about the forest (boreal?)
Line 77: “The probability of fire occurrence...”
Line 93-98: To read better in this section I would suggest something like – “… Some studies have analyzed … pattern []. For example, a study using fire spots statistics and MODIS products applied….” Note: the sentence (line 95-97) needs clarification, as I suggested above make sure I didn’t change the meaning of the sentence.
Line 100: Currently or in recent years? Delete Currently.
Line 107: “the purpose of this study..” or “Here, we aim to provide…”
Line 102, 105, 107: instead of using “paper” use “study”.
Line 142 - 145: remove “it is worth noting that”. Include a comma after ha. Of the total what? Total forest?
Figure 2 (a). The total number of fires means that it is 2020 and 2021 together?
(Section 3.2):Line 229 -230, 236, 239, 242: I suggest to avoid describing what it is plot in the figures, for example line 229-230. It is more important to describe the main results than what it is plotted. I also suggest avoid saying “this result can be confirmed by looking.. “ (line 236). Consider the same comments for the other lines.
Line 238 : ‘had’
Section 3.3: Only include the results in this section. How the fire spots aggregation distribution was characterized should be described in methods. Also consider comments for Section 3.2.
Section 3.4: Again, instead of saying ‘From figure X…” you can just describe the pattern and then indicate where that result can find by citing the figure in the end of the sentence. For example, “JL had two fire hotspots areas (Tonghua and Changchun) in 2021 (Fig. 6 c and d).”
Line 299 and 301: Limits or limitation?
Line 314: “had” instead of “saw”
Line 319: “overestimating”. Limitations?
Line 320-323: Consider writing these two sentences as one and exclude extra text so the reading can flow better.
Line 325-327: This sentence needs some clarification.
Line 331: remove “all the more”
Line 351: By my understanding, decomposition can break down branches and the structure can be changed as well, thus contributing for more readily fuels to burn. However, I don’t understand how decomposition can make the materials (wood) drier.
Line384: Start a new paragraph from this sentence. Instead of saying concluded (that sounds as a conclusion and it would fit better in the conclusion section), you can say “this study found…”
Line 386: delete “more”
Line 388: the hotspots were obtained but what does that mean?
Line 291: This sentence sound out of place and missing something.
Author Response
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Please, consider the following comments.
Introduction 1st and 2nd paragraphs: Again, I recommend to edit these two paragraphs to avoid repeating the word "forest" and "forest fires". See comment (line 34-35) as an example.
Line 34-35: I suggest to rewrite the first sentence to avoid repeting the word "forest". Here is a suggestion: " Forest fires play an important role in regeneration, succession and evolution of deciduous broadleaf and boreal forests [1]."
Line 36: remove "potential" and "the" before economy.
Line 368-371: The sentence "These are hot spots where fires are concentrated" does not say much. I would recommend to rewrite the sentences from lines 368 to 371. Here is a suggestion: "Our results shows the hotspots areas for each province. For example, the province xxx had xxx as the hotspots. Based on our results local forest management and fire prevention should be focus on these hotspots areas."
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
