Spatial Autocorrelation Analysis of CO and NO₂ Related to Forest Fire Dynamics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough review and valuable comments. Your insights have significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of our work. In the attached document, we provide detailed responses to your comments and the revisions made to the manuscript (the revised text is highlighted in red for clarity).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the invitation to review this well-prepared manuscript. The manuscript presents a clear research statement and aims to investigate the spatial and temporal patterns of non-greenhouse gases, specifically CO and NO₂, during forest fire events in the Manavgat District, Turkey. The study explores how variations in factors such as topography, wind speed, and fire ignition points influence the spatial distribution of CO and NO₂ emissions as detected by Sentinel-5P satellite data. Furthermore, it evaluates the effectiveness of Moran's I in analysing the spatial distribution of these two gases during forest fire events. The study's outcomes are presented in a clear and comprehensible manner, and the authors effectively support their findings through comparisons with existing literature. The language used throughout the paper is clear and concise.

 

However, I have a few suggestions for minor to moderate revisions:

1. On Line 114, the authors state that there is a noticeable gap in the literature regarding the detailed spatial analysis of non-GHG gas emissions during forest fires using satellite-based image datasets, such as those provided by Sentinel-5P. However, several studies have utilised Sentinel-5P data in conjunction with Moran's I for monitoring non-GHG gas emissions, particularly in the context of urban air quality. Therefore, the authors are kindly requested to clarify how their approach and methodology differ from or align with other remote-sensing studies that employ Sentinel-5P data for monitoring non-GHG gas emissions (not exclusively for forest fires).

2. On Line 664, the authors state that given the study area is predominantly composed of coniferous forests (approximately 80%), variability in tree species was not considered a significant factor in this analysis. However, they also state that the burned area falls within the following CORINE LULC categories: 312 (46% - Coniferous Forest), 324 (19% - Transitional Woodland-Shrub), 242 (13% - Complex Cultivation Patterns), and 243 (9% - Land Principally Occupied by Agriculture with Significant Areas of Natural Vegetation). Despite this apparent numerical discrepancy regarding the extent of coniferous forest cover, the authors should have investigated the relationship between gas emissions and forest stand composition. Since CORINE-based LULC data does not provide information about the specific types of vegetation burned, it is difficult to substantiate the statements made in Section 4.3. Therefore, I recommend that the article refrain from making definitive statements about fuel types based solely on LULC data, acknowledging that 80% of the burned area is within coniferous forests while also stating that a detailed fuel type analysis was not conducted.

3. Sub-images b, c, and d in Figure 1 require legends to enhance clarity.

4. The bar chart in Figure 2 is not easily interpretable. The areal distribution of LULC classes is already provided in the legend, making the chart redundant.

5. In the paragraph beginning on Line 227, please specify the resolution after resampling, as the resampling process is mentioned in Figure 4.

6. The results section includes analyses and comments on FRP values, yet the methodology section does not provide information on the source of the FRP data.

7. For improved readability, Figure 7 should have a y-axis limit starting from 0.80.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough review and valuable comments. Your insights have significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of our work. In the attached document, we provide detailed responses to your comments and the revisions made to the manuscript (the revised text is highlighted in red for clarity).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Attached. Thank you!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough review and valuable comments. Your insights have significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of our work. In the attached document, we provide detailed responses to your comments and the revisions made to the manuscript (the revised text is highlighted in red for clarity).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my concerns.

Best wishes,

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to refine our manuscript further.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

2nd review attached. Thank you!

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

 Dear Reviewer, we sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and suggestions, which have allowed us to improve the quality and clarity of our work further.

In the attached document, we provide a detailed response to each comment you made and the revisions made to the manuscript. The original text is presented in red, and the revised text is highlighted in turquoise for clarity.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx