Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is well-written. I recommend the publication of this study if my following comments can be addressed. 

1. This study draws a conclusion that the burned areas from permits and FINN have a good correlation at a 4km-grid resolution. However, from Figure 5, the R2 values are less than 0.2. This low R2 value may raise the reader's concern on the robustness of your regression model. Please provide more evidence or description to support the reliability of the new method. 

In Figure 5, please give headings of each subplot like Figure 4 or differentiated axis titles between the two subplots. In current Figure 5, I cannot understand their subjects clearly. 

 

2. In line 234-243, the agricultural burning identification algorithm can capture about 65% of fires detected by the permits, which means it results in lower numbers of agricultural burns. Could the authors give the possible reasons?

 

3. This method is useful, but large uncertainties still exist due to many assumptions included, it will be informative to provide future research directions in the conclusion part to further improve the this algorithm. 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful comments. The replies to your comments are in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

SEEM:

In this study, new algorithms were developed to distinguish prescribed burns from forest fires and agricultural burns in a satellite-derived product.

I consider the work relevant for research on biomass burning, forest fire and prescribed burning emissions. In my opinion, I consider the article approved with few modifications.

The Work needs few adjustments to be published.

TITLE: Estimation Prescribed Fire Activities, Emissions and their  Uncertainties in the Southeastern United States from 2013 to 3 2020

Suggestion: Analysis of Prescribed Fire Activities, Emissions and their  Uncertainties in the Southeastern United States from 2013 to  2020

ABSTRACT.

I consider it important to include the paragraph below in the CONCLUSION in the abstract.

The methods developed in this study are readily usable for differentiating burn type, matching and comparing burned area between two datasets at various resolutions, and estimating prescribed burn emissions.

INTRODUCTION

I see that it would be interesting to include 2 or 3 more bibliographic citations of the limitations of remote sensing data in relation to differentiating prescribed burns from other types of fires.

MATERIALS AND METHODS, RESULTS, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND REFERENCES.

The items above were well prepared and present technical-scientific coherence.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful comments. The replies to your comments are in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see attached review. 

I am selecting minor revisions, but I feel there is not a sufficient discussion regarding Fig. 5 (see attached review). The results could change in a major way if the authors are overlooking this high density of points with permit burnt area of ~0. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful comments. The replies to your comments are in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx