Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would recommend to add in the article onground 2-3 scenes of the dominating tree species and forest types under fires and the test sites, to get readers more detailed landscape and forest visual information. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

As an effective forest management tool, the development of fuelbreaks has proven incredible value in mitigating wildfires and stopping the potential spread of wildfires in protection practice. In this study, an algorithm was proposed for fuelbreak planning, which is based on a recursive application of Dijkstra's algorithm. The application of the algorithm to two artificial forests demonstrated its performance, followed by its application on several actual forests in Israel. An extensive analysis of the algorithm's application was also provided to the fire incident occurring in the Carmel Forest in 2010. It becomes understandable that, dividing the forests to smaller sections is more costly and requires the implementation of longer fuelbreak paths. The paper is well written with the major contents clearly delivered.

 

In the study of fuel management for the wildfire prevention and protection purposes, the terminology fuelbreak is more often adopted, given that the term firebreaks have been more specific to the strategy utilized in fire response with the aim at stopping the ongoing fire. From this standpoint, it is suggested to shift the term to the “fuelbreak”, as the present work deals with a precaution measure for fire prevention rather than protection. Note that, in the classification of the fuelbreak techniques, the removal of fuels from banded area is only one of the options to achieve the set goal. Detailed descriptions of the parallel techniques can be found in a review paper published recently, say “Ecological techniques for wildfire mitigation: Two distinct fuelbreak approaches and their fusion” (Forest Ecology and Management, Vol 495, 2021). You can stick on the exiting technique for fuel management; however, awareness on the parallel techniques should be clearly mentioned in the Introduction. This means that, you do not need to save the entire hand by cutting off a finger nowadays.

 

Besides the above-mentioned issues, this paper has not provided a qualified section of Discussion. At the movement, the statements addressed in that part is more like a summary of the present work. Evidently, this part is necessary to be rewritten to make proper interpretation on the figure data and their internal link as well as their significance in the practice. It seems unclear to propose the locations and density of the fuelbreaks on a firm basis, as it is a usual way to make some comparisons based on the fire risk shift after the implementation of fuelbreaks through a specific density and distribution. A computation platform FARSITE should be very helpful to serve this purpose. Conclusion is a separate part of a paper, which is formed by drawing your research outcomes and findings of this paper.

 

Some figures are not properly interpreted with the missed vegetation and topography information, which could be improved by adding the relevant statements in the figure captions or in the text. The authors affiliation information and contact details also need to be included in the revision version of the paper manuscript.

 

n/a

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and suggestion are in attachment (review report).

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This is an interesting study and the manuscript is generally well written. The algorithm was valuable for firebreak planning, although the assumption of the study may not always be reasonable. Scientifically locating firebreaks is critical in controlling wildfires and should be systemically designed depending on landscape features (e.g., ridges, rivers, bogs) and weather processes (e.g., precipitation, wind direction, wind speed). For instance, changes in local wind direction can convert the flank of a fire into a new front. Thus, the authors should rewrite the discussion section and emphasize a detailed discussion of topography and wind conditions based on relevant references. In the current manuscript, the authors chose 200 meters as the firebreak width, which seems to be larger compared with traditional firebreaks. In my opinion, a wide range of firebreak widths (20-200 m) should be tested for the algorithm, and the corresponding conclusions could be more suitable in terms of potential applications.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Following a review of your revised manuscript, I am pleased to confirm that the revisions have been appropriately addressed. You have made significant progress in amending the manuscript according to previous review suggestions, which has improved the manuscript in a substantial way.

 Consequently, I support the manuscript's publication in its present form. Thank you for your diligent work on this manuscript.