Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed article is devoted to an experimental investigation of cigarette butts as an ingnition source for the needle beds under one of the typical stands in Guizhou Province, China. The influence of moisture content, fuelbed packing ratio, and wind velocity on ignition probability and ignition time were examined. This work is one of many of this type, but it definitely makes a certain contribution to the development of knowledge about the occurrence of forest fires under the influence of the human factor. The main goal of the research as well as experimental approach and methods of processing of the obtained results choosen by the authors are well supported by comprehensive list of references fully reflecting current situation in the field of scientific interest. 

Experimental results are thoroughly described and well illustrated in Figures and Tables. The statistical methods of  experimental data processing used in the reviewed study are chosen reasonably and are quite sufficient to achieve the goals of the work, their description is very accurate and detailed. Discussion of the results is the next 'big plus' of the article. All the conclusions made in the paper are supported by the obtained results.

In my opinion, the reviewed article should be published after minor improvements, which are mostly editorial:

Page 2, line 43: replace 'ecological environment' by 'environment';

Page 2, line 56: doubled dot after the sentence:

Page 2, line 59: the term 'non - productive fire source' is incorrect;

Page 6, lines 220 - 221: when you say 'following factors', you have to say which factors you mean.

 

Author Response

Yunlin Zhang

School of Biological Sciences, Guizhou Education University

Gaoxin St.115

Guiyang, Guizhou Province 550018

PR China

• mail: zhangyunlin@gznc.edu.cn

 

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for reviewing the manuscript. All revisions have been made as required, the response are as follows:

 

Comments:

The reviewed article is devoted to an experimental investigation of cigarette butts as an ingnition source for the needle beds under one of the typical stands in Guizhou Province, China. The influence of moisture content, fuelbed packing ratio, and wind velocity on ignition probability and ignition time were examined. This work is one of many of this type, but it definitely makes a certain contribution to the development of knowledge about the occurrence of forest fires under the influence of the human factor. The main goal of the research as well as experimental approach and methods of processing of the obtained results choosen by the authors are well supported by comprehensive list of references fully reflecting current situation in the field of scientific interest.

Experimental results are thoroughly described and well illustrated in Figures and Tables. The statistical methods of  experimental data processing used in the reviewed study are chosen reasonably and are quite sufficient to achieve the goals of the work, their description is very accurate and detailed. Discussion of the results is the next 'big plus' of the article. All the conclusions made in the paper are supported by the obtained results.

In my opinion, the reviewed article should be published after minor improvements, which are mostly editorial:

 

Page 2, line 43: replace 'ecological environment' by 'environment';

Answer: Thank you for your advice, it has been modified as required.

 

Page 2, line 56: doubled dot after the sentence:

Answer: Thank you for your correction, it has been modified.

 

Page 2, line 59: the term 'non - productive fire source' is incorrect;

Answer: Thank you for your correction, the description has been modified.

 

Page 6, lines 220 - 221: when you say 'following factors', you have to say which factors you mean.

Answer: Thank you for your advice, the factors has been added as required.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is interesting. Focused on the cigarettes as a prevalent cause of human-induced forest fires, and gives new method for predicting the ignition probability of cigarettes, which is of great significance for scientific forest fire management. The writing is easy-to-read, the materials and methods is clearly explained and the results are well presented. I suggest some comments to improve the manuscript to publish.

 Specific comments:

1. Line 17, It should be pointed out how 3600 ignition experiment came about?

2. Line 30, Remove.

3. Line 38-39, Known concept do not need, start from Guizhou Province.

4. Lines 44-46, Is this percentage an estimation or are there Official statistics or references to support this sentence?

5. Line 56, Check writing;

6. Line 57, replace smoking with cigarette butts;

7. Line 150, the unit display is incorrect, the same below;

8. Line 203-208, Select the coefficient of variation to describe air temperature and humidity, ensuring that the burning experiments are in a relatively constant environment. The quarter percentile value is no need to describe.

9. Line 298-300, This section is not necessary, known concept.

10. Line 319, What is the basic situation statistics? Ignition probability?

11. Line 334, A majority of Sig. in Table 3 and Table 6 are listed as zero; do these values represent an exact zero, or are they indicative of a value that is simply very small, such as 0.00001? This needs to be accurately described

12. Line 385, Add letter meanings to Fig.6, where different letters indicate significant differences?

13. Line 390, "within an acceptable range of error" should be clearer by specifying what the acceptable range of error and is there any literature support?

14. Line 418, The unit format in Table 7 is incorrect.

15. Line 508, What guidance should be provided for forest fire management based on ignition time?

16. “Pinus massoniana” and its abbreviation “P. massoniana” should have a consistant format for clarity and formality in academic writing. 

Author Response

Yunlin Zhang

School of Biological Sciences, Guizhou Education University

Gaoxin St.115

Guiyang, Guizhou Province 550018

PR China

• mail: zhangyunlin@gznc.edu.cn

 

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for reviewing the manuscript. All revisions have been made as required, the response are as follows:

 

Comments:

This manuscript is interesting. Focused on the cigarettes as a prevalent cause of human-induced forest fires, and gives new method for predicting the ignition probability of cigarettes, which is of great significance for scientific forest fire management. The writing is easy-to-read, the materials and methods is clearly explained and the results are well presented. I suggest some comments to improve the manuscript to publish.

Specific comments:

1. Line 17, It should be pointed out how 3600 ignition experiment came about?

Answer: Thank you for your advice, it has been added as required.

 

2. Line 30, Remove.

Answer: Thank you for your advice, it has been removed.

 

3. Line 38-39, Known concept do not need, start from Guizhou Province.

Answer: Thank you for your advice, it has been removed.

 

4. Lines 44-46, Is this percentage an estimation or are there Official statistics or references to support this sentence?

Answer: Thank you for your correction, the reference has been added.

 

5. Line 56, Check writing;

Answer: Thank you for your correction, it has been modified.

 

6. Line 57, replace smoking with cigarette butts;

Answer: Thank you for your advice, it has been replaced.

 

7. Line 150, the unit display is incorrect, the same below;

Answer: Thank you for your correction, it has been modified.

 

8. Line 203-208, Select the coefficient of variation to describe air temperature and humidity, ensuring that the burning experiments are in a relatively constant environment. The quarter percentile value is no need to describe.

Answer: Thank you for your advice, it has been removed.

 

9. Line 298-300, This section is not necessary, known concept.

Answer: Thank you for your advice, it has been removed.

 

10. Line 319, What is the basic situation statistics? Ignition probability?

Answer: Thank you for your correction, it has been modified as “Basic situation statistics of ignition probability ”

 

11. Line 334, A majority of Sig. in Table 3 and Table 6 are listed as zero; do these values represent an exact zero, or are they indicative of a value that is simply very small, such as 0.00001? This needs to be accurately described

Answer: Thank you for your correction, the zero means that is simply very small. It has been modified to ensure a more accurate description.  

 

12. Line 385, Add letter meanings to Fig.6, where different letters indicate significant differences?

Answer: Thank you for your correction, different letters indicate significant differences at the 0.05 level. Added relevant description in the manuscript.

 

13. Line 390, "within an acceptable range of error" should be clearer by specifying what the acceptable range of error and is there any literature support?

Answer: Thank you for your advice, delete the description in the Results section and add specific numerical values and reference in the Discussion section.

 

14. Line 418, The unit format in Table 7 is incorrect.

Answer: Thank you for your correction, it has been modified.

 

15. Line 508, What guidance should be provided for forest fire management based on ignition time?

Answer: Thank you for your advice, it has been added.

 

16. “Pinus massoniana” and its abbreviation “P. massoniana” should have a consistant format for clarity and formality in academic writing.

Answer: Thank you for your advice, it has been modified.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Ignition of forest fires by cigarette butts: Using Pinus massoniana needles as an example has been well presented. The research article is original and well detailed. 

This reviewer thinks that this article is suitable for publication and provides extremely useful contributions to knowledge. The English language used by the author(s) was simple and easy to understand. The abstract was logical and well simplified.

It was very interesting reading through the background information presented on Table 2, which was necessary to understand the boundary conditions for Figure 1 experimental setup. The article was well detailed under different set of experimental conditions. The result was well presented, discussed and analysed. The conclusion was comprehensive and will be very clear to the readers. 

However, to make this research article better, this reviewer suggests that the author(s) should ammend these minor errors. 

1. Line 94 contains "... wit a nearly 5-fold ...". Please change wit to with.

2. Line 139 stated that 150 cubic centimetres was equal to 0.15 cubic metres. This is not correct and should had been multiplied by 1 millionth.  The quantity 150 cubic centimetres is actually equal to 0.00015  cubic metres. 

3. Line 152, by extension the 0.15 cubic metres should also be updated to 0.00015 cubic metres. 

Author Response

Yunlin Zhang

School of Biological Sciences, Guizhou Education University

Gaoxin St.115

Guiyang, Guizhou Province 550018

PR China

• mail: zhangyunlin@gznc.edu.cn

 

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for reviewing the manuscript. All revisions have been made as required, the response are as follows:

 

Comments:

Ignition of forest fires by cigarette butts: Using Pinus massoniana needles as an example has been well presented. The research article is original and well detailed.

This reviewer thinks that this article is suitable for publication and provides extremely useful contributions to knowledge. The English language used by the author(s) was simple and easy to understand. The abstract was logical and well simplified.

It was very interesting reading through the background information presented on Table 2, which was necessary to understand the boundary conditions for Figure 1 experimental setup. The article was well detailed under different set of experimental conditions. The result was well presented, discussed and analysed. The conclusion was comprehensive and will be very clear to the readers.

However, to make this research article better, this reviewer suggests that the author(s) should ammend these minor errors.

 

1. Line 94 contains "... wit a nearly 5-fold ...". Please change wit to with.

Answer: Thank you for your correction, it has been modified.

 

2. Line 139 stated that 150 cubic centimetres was equal to 0.15 cubic metres. This is not correct and should had been multiplied by 1 millionth.  The quantity 150 cubic centimetres is actually equal to 0.00015  cubic metres.

Answer: Thank you for your correction, there was an error in writing here and it has been modified.

 

3. Line 152, by extension the 0.15 cubic metres should also be updated to 0.00015 cubic metres.

Answer: Thank you for your correction, there was an error in writing here and it has been modified.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf