The Dynamic Influence of Mountain–Valley Breeze Circulation on Wildfire Spread in the Greater Khingan Mountains
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study combines a decade of summer meteorological station data from northwestern Greater Khingan with high-resolution WRF-Fire simulations of a 2023 wildfire to analyze wind fields in complex terrain and their impact on fire behavior. The method is of innovation, and results are interesting. However, the manuscript in its current form requires revisions before it can be considered for publication. My specific comments are detailed below:
1) Although the research gap has been pointed out in the introduction, like line 68 – 69, there are still some related studies focusing on this topic. And the difference between this study and the related previous research should be highlighted, indicating the contribution of this study, in the introduction section. It is recommended to integrate the following paragraph (line 77 -88), like the features of the Greater Khingan Mountains.
2) It is suggested that the structure of this manuscript be added to the introduction section to improve the clarity and help readers understand.
3) As the authors mentioned the weather stations adopted in this study, more details, like the precision of the devices, should be provided in the section 2, and the current descriptions regarding the weather stations are incomplete and unclear.
4) There are several minor format issues regarding formulas, like the units for the variables. And the locations of the serial numbers should also be unified. Subtitles should also be numbered like line 147.
5) There is some information regarding the Wildfire Spread Simulation Method in Section 2.2.2. However, more details should be provided like the advantages of this method and the reasons for the selection of this method. The comparisons between this method and other potential methods are recommended to be listed.
6) In the section of Validation Method for Wildfire Spread, NBR is an important index in terms of the validation process. However, the value of this index did not appear in the section of results.
7) It showed that the method adopted in the study has great capacity to reconstruct the macro-scale spatial pattern and dynamic evolution of this wildfire event, which proved the value of this study. However, it is recommended to use this method to obtain more based on the macro-scale spatial pattern and dynamic evolution of this wildfire event under various conditions. This could help the management to develop corresponding measures to protect the mountains and forests.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study combined statistical analysis of summer observational data from meteor-ological stations over the past decade in the northwestern Greater Khingan Mountainswith a WRF-Fire model simulation of a wildfire event in summer 2023. A series conclusions are obtained, but there are some comments to improve this paper.
- The wildfire event experimental data should be introduced in more detialed, and it is very important for the next simulation valiation. If the data is not published before, a wildfire event experimental section is necessary.
- The comparison of experiment and simulation should provide more data, and the current validation is not enough.
- Is the results in Fig.6b and 6c expriment or simulation? Fig. 6a is too obscure.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study examines the relationship between valley winds and fire behaviour in the complex topography of the Greater Khingan Mountains. Using the WRF-Fire model to simulate fire events in 2023 realistically reconstructs the propagation process of these fires. The findings provide a valuable reference for future researchers investigating fire spread mechanisms and simulating real fire scenes. No major issues requiring revision were identified in the paper, but the following minor issues were noted and require modification:
Line 267: A legend or note should be added to the figure caption to explain what the red and blue lines represent.
Line 314: The font size for the horizontal axis labels in the figure could be reduced slightly, as the current size affects readability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I have read your paper and have several suggestions for improving its quality, as outlined below. Please consider incorporating these revisions into the manuscript or providing appropriate responses to each comment.
I will begin with the abstract. In lines 7–8, you provide a description of the topic, but you have not clearly articulated the research gap or the necessity of conducting this study.
In lines 22–24, you should also include a brief summary of the main implications and conclusions of the research.
Regarding the keywords, four terms are listed, three of which are directly taken from the title. To enhance the paper’s visibility in search results, it is advisable to use keywords that differ from those in the title. I recommend selecting alternative keywords.
In line 28, you should mention some of the most significant threats related to wildfires.
While in some places, such as lines 29 and 40, you have cited multiple references for certain facts, in other instances you have presented claims without providing any citations.
The introduction requires substantial revision. From the outset, the main research problem should be presented within its broader research context. Then, through a review of relevant literature, you should identify the research gap. In the final paragraph, it would be useful to highlight the potential contributions of your study and clearly state the research problem.
The issue of wildfires discussed in your paper is a global concern. It would strengthen your introduction if you explained how this local case study offers insights that are relevant and valuable to an international audience.
In line 105, you begin discussing the summer conditions of the study area without first introducing or locating it. Section 2.1 should begin with a clear description of the study area.
Between lines 105 and 125, you have addressed several distinct topics together; these should be separated under appropriate subheadings.
Headings such as those on lines 129 and 147 do not seem to require numbering, and the same applies to those on lines 181 and 207, as well as lines 239 and 245.
The order of the materials and methods section appears uncertain. Would it not be more logical to describe the data before explaining how they were analyzed?
Section 4 of your paper, currently titled “Discussion and Conclusion,” should be divided into two distinct parts.
The discussion section should compare your findings with previous studies and provide explanations for the results obtained.
Your paper also lacks a section on theoretical and policy implications. You should clarify the study’s contribution to existing knowledge and outline its practical implications for managers and policymakers.
Furthermore, the manuscript does not include a limitations section. What constraints may have affected your research? What factors might limit the generalizability of your findings to other regions?
Finally, the paper lacks suggestions for future research. It would be valuable to indicate directions for subsequent studies that could build on your work.
Wishes
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for this research. I have some comments to clarify regarding the manuscript below:
First of all, you need to put the "North Arrow" on all maps.
Line 10–11 and 100–102:
There is a clear inconsistency in the reported year of the simulated wildfire event. The abstract refers to a 2023 wildfire, while the methods section mentions 2022 as the simulation year. This discrepancy affects the reproducibility of the study and must be corrected consistently throughout the text, figures, and captions.
Line 114–116:
The dataset period is stated as “2015–2024.” As the manuscript is prepared in 2025, it is unclear whether complete data for 2024 were available and used. The authors should clarify the temporal coverage—e.g., “2015–2023” or “up to August 2024”—to avoid ambiguity about the data’s completeness.
Line 153–157:
The definition of “low-wind day threshold” (mean minus 0.5×standard deviation) appears arbitrary and lacks statistical justification. The authors should either provide a supporting reference for this empirical criterion or justify why this formulation was selected over more conventional percentile-based methods.
Line 208–221:
The model validation relies solely on Sentinel-2 NBR-derived burned area. While spatial resolution alignment (10–30 m) is acceptable, the temporal resolution mismatch between satellite overpass time and actual fire progression could introduce uncertainty. The authors should discuss how this temporal gap may have influenced the comparison and whether additional data sources (e.g., MODIS thermal anomalies) were considered.
Line 338–347:
The ignition time of 08:00 UTC corresponds to 16:00 local time (UTC+8), which is indeed afternoon. However, this time conversion should be explicitly stated to prevent confusion for international readers and to ensure temporal alignment with local meteorological data.
Line 423–425:
The authors claim significant diurnal variation in wind speed, yet no statistical evidence (such as p-values or confidence intervals) is presented. The use of terms like “significant” implies statistical testing, which is currently absent. Quantitative verification using standard tests (e.g., ANOVA or paired t-test) is recommended to substantiate this statement.
Line 456–458:
The authors note that “peak heat release lagged behind maximum spread rate,” but no quantitative explanation or model-derived evidence is given. This finding is scientifically meaningful and should be supported with a time-series correlation or lag analysis demonstrating the magnitude and duration of the lag.
Line 462–473:
The authors generalize the identified physical mechanisms as representative of wildfire dynamics in the Greater Khingan Mountains. However, since only a single wildfire case was analyzed, these conclusions should be reframed as preliminary or case-specific findings. Broader generalization requires multi-event validation.
Line 471–473:
The statement “verify the universality of the identified physical mechanisms” is too strong given the single-case framework. It should be softened to “assess the reproducibility or applicability of the identified mechanisms in other cases.”
Line 259–263, 309–313, 423–425:
The discussion of wind speed variations across valleys and slopes is descriptive but lacks statistical support. The phrase “significant diurnal and spatial variation” should only be used if supported by quantitative analysis; otherwise, use “pronounced” or “distinct.”
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is a very well executed work and paper.
There is need for explanation and description of the WRF-Fire model. Please discuss the computer needs.
A diagram about the structure of the program is needed. It has to be discussed how the fire predictions are being used together with the Associated errors.
VALIDATION FO A SIMPLE CASE
Assuming a burning area in a sloping hill and a given wind , predict flame heights and tilt and compare with CFD solutions and experiments. ( there are many references in literature).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept
Author Response
Thank you for your acceptance of the revised manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments and detailed guidance throughout the review process, which have played a crucial role in improving the quality of this paper.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors
I appreciate your effort in revision. Unfortunately, some important issues were not addressed. First, You bring the conclusion before discussion which is not normal in a paper. second, you wrote the discussion without deep comparison with former study and did not discuss the results. Third, You did not include important sections such as theoretical implications, policy and management implication and limitations and future research.
wishes
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you very much for your thorough and considerate revisions. I appreciate the clear and constructive improvements you have made throughout the manuscript, as well as your careful attention to the points raised in the previous review. The revised version shows substantial progress and addresses the concerns effectively.
Thank you again for your efforts and cooperation.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your positive feedback and recognition of our revisions. We sincerely appreciate your invaluable guidance and constructive suggestions throughout the review process, which have significantly strengthened the quality of our manuscript. We are pleased to hear that the revised version has addressed your concerns satisfactorily. Thank you once again for your time, expertise, and supportive guidance.
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthe revisions enrich and correct the paper
Author Response
Thank you for your acceptance of the revised manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments and detailed guidance throughout the review process, which have played a crucial role in improving the quality of this paper.
