Biomass Burning over Africa: How to Explain the Differences Observed Between the Different Emission Inventories?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper ‘ Biomass burning over Africa, ‘How to explain the differences observed between the different emission inventories?’ , by N’Datchoh et al., investigates biomass burning emission inventories and their discrepancies, in particular for the African continent. As this region is very important for global biomass burning impacts, this paper makes a relevant contribution to the scientific discussion.
The manuscript is well written.
I have some minor comments to be taken into account before I can recommend publication.
General comments
The authors should motivate in more detail their choice to test on biomass density (BD) and burning efficiency (BE), and ‘fix’ the other parameters. Why not testing on vegetation classes, maps? Are these other parameters sufficiently well described, well-known?
The study focusses also on the emission of BC and OC. Particulate matter is also a very important parameter, with respect to mass injected and also with respect to impact on aerosol optical depth, parameters applied widely in use by global atmospheric transport models and thus of importance when it comes to emissions by biomass burning. The study would gain in relevance if the authors could give some results for PM.
In the discussion I miss some quantitative comparison of their found emission loads for BC, OC with other models or reanalyses for the region and time period under study.
Specific comments
Page2 line3: reference 13 on global burned area: Are there some more recent publications? In recent years there were many large wild fires in Canada or Australia which seem to happen more often now and maybe shifting this partition of global burned area?
Page2, second paragraph: L3JRC burned area product is described first to show higher, more realistic emissions, but later the authors mention the ‘poor performance of that fire product’. Please clarify.
Figure4: relative gaps: there are values, colour codes for areas for which in the respective three other related plots there is ‘nothing’ (or is it simply too whitish)?
Section 3.3: a respective figure for OC is not shown. Would it be possible to either include it or have it in a supplement?
Section 3.4:
For readability I agree to use GLC-X instead of the complete vegetation type. However, at least at the end of the paragraph the main vegetation contributors should be named, not only the code.
Page 17, line 4-5: ‘In Africa, where savannas usually burn …’; this sounds as like this vegetation type has in its nature to be burned; please rephrase
Page 17, second paragraph: are the precipitation amounts and thus change in BD, BE mentioned taken into account in the inventories?
Section 5 Conclusions
First sentence: ‘explaining factor of 2.4 found …’: please clarify if the authors refer to their work or to literature reference
Technical comments
Figure 7 and 8: legend in graph 7a, 8a: should be enlarged for better readability
Table 1:
Please check if for BE BD BEBD units need to be given
Also, some numbers are ‘twisted’ or seem not to be in the correct column/line; it is probably a formatting thing, but please check
Page 17, second paragraph last sentence: ‘This work result highlights …’ please rephrase correctly
In general: Often there is no space after a ‘.’ at the end of the former sentence.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPage 3
The Introduction section says "Therefore, several questions were raised: are these huge gaps related to: (1) the methodology applied for each inventory? What is the importance of each parameter's role in the biomass burning uncertainties over Africa? (2) burned area products? (3) vegetation maps? (4) burning efficiencies? (5) biomass density?"
It is advisable for the authors to write answers in more detail to these questions in the discussion section or the conclusion section to find out the reasons for the differences between these two “bottom-up” inventories. The text only provides a comparison of these two inventories.
Page 3
The authors write that "with a focus on the role of vegetation parameters (biomass density (BD) and burning efficiency (BE)). "
Why did the author decide to focus on the role of vegetation parameters (biomass density (BD) and burning efficiency (BE))?
Page 3
The authors write "For this purpose, two BB emission inventories called AMMABB-like and GFED-like have been developed using the same fire product, the same vegetation map, and the same emission factors, but with different BD and BE."
"same fire product, the same vegetation map, and the same emission factors, but with different BD and BE" are used AMMABB and AMMABB-like, GFED and GFED-like or AMMABB-like and GFED-like?
Page 8
Why are there two windows 11 in Fig. 1?
Page 16
What units of measurement of BD are used in Table 1?
Page 17
We don't understand the sentence "The vegetation classes GLC3, GLC12, GLC13, and GLC18 contribute to BC and OC." Don't the other vegetation classes have contributions to BC and OC?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
