Investigating Drought Events and Their Consequences in Wildfires: An Application in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments on the manuscript fire-2345139

This manuscript employed multiple linear regression models to analyze the relationship between burned area (BA) during fire seasons from 2001 to 2019 in seven major regions of mainland China and concurrent drought, antecedent drought, and time trends. The study found that antecedent drought was the key predictor in most regions, while concurrent drought had a significant impact in two regions. The manuscript also discussed the changing trends of BA over time in various regions. The research demonstrated a statistically based wildfire prediction model, offering valuable insights into the spatial distribution and potential predictors of wildfires in mainland China. Overall, this paper made a beneficial contribution to the field of wildfire research and provided a reference for relevant policy-makers. It is overall well written, and thus should be accepted for publication after some issues considered.

The major concerns:

1. Suggest restructuring the introduction. In the second paragraph of the introduction, the author focuses on the advancements in wildfire modeling research. However, given that the preceding and following content is centered around wildfires and their influencing factors, the placement of this paragraph appears somewhat abrupt. It is recommended that the author adjust the structure of the introduction to achieve a more coherent and concise presentation.

2. Regarding regional divisions. This study primarily utilizes drought, an influencing factor related to precipitation and temperature, for modeling purposes. However, the regional divisions are artificially delineated administrative areas. Although the text mentions that the purpose of using administrative areas is to facilitate recommendations for policymakers and managers, this approach may result in uniformity of the outcomes, consequently concealing regions with higher weights. Implementing natural divisions could improve the spatial accuracy of the model simulations. In subsequent studies, it may be worth considering the incorporation of natural divisions.

Other specific comments:

1.     About Abstract. Abbreviations pertaining to regions should be supplemented with their complete designations. When mentioning the predictive capabilities of the multiple linear regression model, it is advisable to provide or annotate specific values for predictive accuracy or error ranges, in order to demonstrate the practical effectiveness of the model.

2.     About Figure 1. It is suggested to modify the map background to include the Asian region containing China. Additionally, colors that appear in the legend but not in the map should either be removed from the legend or properly incorporated. Alternatively, the start and end times for maps A and B could be annotated with text, such as "May-Jun," and the depth of the color could be used to indicate the length of the fire season. This approach would enable the display of all relevant information within a single map.

3.     About Figure 2. In the images, some colors are excessively dark, resulting in the obscuration of corresponding text. Please adjust the colors accordingly. For suggestions regarding the legend and other aspects, please refer to the recommendations provided above for Figure 1.

Author Response

May 6^th, 2023

Fire

Dear Editor,

I am pleased to submit the revised manuscript (ID = fire-2345139) for publication in Fire, titled "Drought as a Key Factor in Controlling Wildfires in China." We have taken careful consideration of the reviewers' comments and suggestions and have made significant improvements to the manuscript. In response to their feedback, we have supplemented additional articles, enhanced the introduction and discussion sections, and conducted extensive revisions throughout the text.

To aid in tracking the changes, we have highlighted the main modifications in yellow color. Additionally, we have provided point-by-point responses to address each of the reviewers' comments, which are outlined below.

Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript. We believe that the changes made have significantly strengthened the quality and contribution of the study.

Sincerely,

Reviewer#1:

Comments: Suggest restructuring the introduction. In the second paragraph of the introduction, the author focuses on the advancements in wildfire modeling research. However, given that the preceding and following content is centered around wildfires and their influencing factors, the placement of this paragraph appears somewhat abrupt. It is recommended that the author adjust the structure of the introduction to achieve a more coherent and concise presentation.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised and adjusted the introduction based on expert advice to achieve a more coherent and concise presentation. Please refer to lines 67-95 for the updated version.

Comments: Regarding regional divisions. This study primarily utilizes drought, an influencing factor related to precipitation and temperature, for modeling purposes. However, the regional divisions are artificially delineated administrative areas. Although the text mentions that the purpose of using administrative areas is to facilitate recommendations for policymakers and managers, this approach may result in uniformity of the outcomes, consequently concealing regions with higher weights. Implementing natural divisions could improve the spatial accuracy of the model simulations. In subsequent studies, it may be worth considering the incorporation of natural divisions.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Since fire prevention policies are based on administrative divisions, we used them as the basis for our study to facilitate recommendations for policymakers and managers. However, we acknowledge that using natural divisions could improve the spatial accuracy of the model simulations. In future studies, we will consider incorporating natural divisions and take into account the opinions of experts to enhance the relevance of our research. Please refer to lines 108-110 for the revised response.

Comments: About Abstract. Abbreviations pertaining to regions should be supplemented with their complete designations. When mentioning the predictive capabilities of the multiple linear regression model, it is advisable to provide or annotate specific values for predictive accuracy or error ranges, in order to demonstrate the practical effectiveness of the model.

Response: We have supplemented the complete designations of abbreviations pertaining to regions in the abstract section. Additionally, we have provided annotations for predictive accuracy or error ranges of the multiple linear regression model to demonstrate its practical effectiveness. Please refer to lines 23, 29-34 for the updated version.

Comments: About Figure 1. It is suggested to modify the map background to include the Asian region containing China. Additionally, colors that appear in the legend but not in the map should either be removed from the legend or properly incorporated. Alternatively, the start and end times for maps A and B could be annotated with text, such as "May-Jun," and the depth of the color could be used to indicate the length of the fire season. This approach would enable the display of all relevant information within a single map.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have modified Figure 1 to include the Asian region containing China in the map background. We have also removed colors from the legend that do not appear in the map or properly incorporated them. Furthermore, we have added text annotations indicating the start and end times for maps A and B. Please refer to line 254 for the revised version.

Comments: About Figure 2. In the images, some colors are excessively dark, resulting in th obscuration of corresponding text. Please adjust the colors accordingly. For suggestions regarding the legend and other aspects, please refer to the recommendations provided above for Figure 1.

Response: We have adjusted the colors in Figure 2 to ensure that they are not excessively dark, which previously obscured the corresponding text. We have also referred to the recommendations provided for Figure 1 regarding the legend and other aspects. Please refer to line 299 for the updated version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract

This is important to add some quantitative results to the abstract part.

1. Introduction

What are the questions and hypothesis of the current study?

Please explain about the innovative of this study and difference of this study by too many literatures review included in text.

2.1. Data

Any details about features of the study area, its climate and other thing?

2.2. Methodology

Please add a flowchart from the current study. This is important to explain methodology step-by-step.

Any details about SPEI and sc-PDSI indicators?

What is AIC? Please explain and add its equation.

In general, methodology isn’t well and have to write again by some details.

Results

The legend of maps is in maps. Please edit these maps again.

4. Discussion

This part needs to empower by the following sentences:

This is important to add some comparisons between the current study and previous publications.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of the suggested indicators in comparison by other indices?

In general, research need to consider very serious in language, methodology, and discussion.

Moderate editing of English language

Author Response

May 6^th, 2023

Fire

Dear Editor,

I am pleased to submit the revised manuscript (ID = fire-2345139) for publication in Fire, titled "Drought as a Key Factor in Controlling Wildfires in China." We have taken careful consideration of the reviewers' comments and suggestions and have made significant improvements to the manuscript. In response to their feedback, we have supplemented additional articles, enhanced the introduction and discussion sections, and conducted extensive revisions throughout the text.

To aid in tracking the changes, we have highlighted the main modifications in yellow color. Additionally, we have provided point-by-point responses to address each of the reviewers' comments, which are outlined below.

Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript. We believe that the changes made have significantly strengthened the quality and contribution of the study.

Sincerely,

Reviewer#2:

Comments: Abstract

1. This is important to add some quantitative results to the abstract part.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Quantitative values of the results have been added to the abstract as suggested. Please refer to lines 29-34 for the updated version.

Comments: Introduction

2. What are the questions and hypothesis of the current study?

Response: The current study addresses two main questions: (1) Is SPEI more applicable to China than other drought indices? Our hypothesis is that SPEI will be more suitable for the Chinese region. (2) Do different weather windows have an effect on wildfires in China? Are climate windows and influences different in different regions? It is assumed that different climate windows have an impact on China, and there are variations among different regions. However, specific differences cannot be determined.

3. Please explain about the innovative of this study and difference of this study by too many literatures review included in text.

Response: This study has two main innovations: (1) The adoption of a new comprehensive climate index (SPEI) that is better suited for China. Please refer to lines 67-95 for more details. (2) The use of different window periods to investigate the impact of climate on wildfires, and the identification of optimal window periods suitable for different regions to improve the prediction model compared to traditional approaches. Please refer to lines 346-352 for more details.

Comments: Data

4. Any details about features of the study area, its climate and other thing?

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added details about the features of the study area, including its climate, terrain, vegetation, and other relevant information, to provide a comprehensive understanding of the research context. Please refer to lines 108-138 for the updated version.

Comments: Methodology

5. Please add a flowchart from the current study. This is important to explain methodology step-by-step.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added a flowchart outlining the methodology of the study. Please refer to Figure 3 for a step-by-step explanation of the methodology. Please refer to lines 219-233 for the revised response.

6. Any details about SPEI and sc-PDSI indicators?

Response: Detailed information about the SPEI and sc-PDSI indicators, including their acquisition and meaning, has been added to the data section to provide a better understanding of these indicators. Please refer to lines 168-176 for the updated version.

7. What is AIC? Please explain and add its equation.

Response: The detailed information about AIC calculation and introduction, including its equation, has been supplemented in the methods section. Please refer to lines 218-222 for the revised response.

Comments: Results

8. The legend of maps is in maps. Please edit these maps again.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have edited the maps to ensure that the legend is clear and properly aligned.

Comments: Discussion

9. This is important to add some comparisons between the current study and previous publications.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added comparisons between the current study and previous publications to provide a context for the findings. Please refer to lines 345-352 for the updated version.

10. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the suggested indicators in comparison by other indices?

Response: We have supplemented and explained the advantages and disadvantages of the suggested indicators in comparison to other indices in the introduction section. Please refer to lines 67-95.

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion the idea of the article is satisfactory, but I 'd like to state some opinions. First of all the title of the article. It is too general. Maybe it could be " Drought as a key factor or Investigation of drought  events and their consequences in wildfires. Application in China.

I would also like to see more citations. Especially at the lines 61-68 I would like to see a better justification. I 'd suggest to use more recent citations worldwide.

I would also like to see at the Conclusions part of the paper, why is this paper significant to the community. What are the main innovations?

Lastly, I am  not sure that you have the correct way to write the references, I can not see anywhere the surnames of the authors.

Thank you

Author Response

May 6^th, 2023

Fire

Dear Editor,

I am pleased to submit the revised manuscript (ID = fire-2345139) for publication in Fire, titled "Drought as a Key Factor in Controlling Wildfires in China." We have taken careful consideration of the reviewers' comments and suggestions and have made significant improvements to the manuscript. In response to their feedback, we have supplemented additional articles, enhanced the introduction and discussion sections, and conducted extensive revisions throughout the text.

To aid in tracking the changes, we have highlighted the main modifications in yellow color. Additionally, we have provided point-by-point responses to address each of the reviewers' comments, which are outlined below.

Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript. We believe that the changes made have significantly strengthened the quality and contribution of the study.

Sincerely,

Reviewer#3:

Comments: In my opinion the idea of the article is satisfactory, but I 'd like to state some opinions. First of all the title of the article. It is too general. Maybe it could be " Drought as a key factor or Investigation of drought  events and their consequences in wildfires. Application in China.

Response: We appreciate your suggestion, and based on your input, we have revised the title of the article to "Investigating Drought Events and Their Consequences in Wildfires: An Application in China." We believe that the new title accurately reflects the focus and scope of our research.

Comments: I would also like to see more citations. Especially at the lines 61-68 I would like to see a better justification. I 'd suggest to use more recent citations worldwide.

Response: We have included more citations throughout the manuscript, including recent references from worldwide sources. In particular, we have enhanced the justification and explanation of the relevant indexes in lines 61-68, incorporating recent articles published in the last three years to support our claims (see lines 67-95).

Comments: I would also like to see at the Conclusions part of the paper, why is this paper significant to the community. What are the main innovations?

Response: We have taken the reviewer's suggestion into account and added a section in the Conclusions part of the paper to highlight the significance of our study to the community and to outline the main innovations of our research. Please refer to lines 392-309 for more details.

Comments: Lastly, I am not sure that you have the correct way to write the references, I cannot see anywhere the surnames of the authors.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's attention to detail regarding the reference format. The format of the references follows the specific requirements of the journal to which we are submitting the paper. As such, we may not be able to make adjustments to the format of the surnames of the authors as suggested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I can see the improvements of the manuscript, but i think that the number of the lines you provide is incorrect. So, it is difficult to follow the changes. Additionally, the total number of references is now 57, but it was 59. I am sorry but I can not see where the additions are and which are the related papers.