Effect of Climate Evolution on the Dynamics of the Wildfires in Greece

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

1. There are a few grammar corrections, please my note in the attachment. 

2. There are too many figures.  Rearrange them by putting them into Case Study 1 and Case Study 2 instead.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The English is okay, but they still need to correct a bit of grammar and misspellings.  

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed review and insightful suggestions for improving our manuscript. I'm delighted to inform you that we have carefully addressed all of the proposed corrections, and I believe the manuscript is now greatly improved. The new round corresponding adjustments to the manuscript are marked with green highlight each time. Regarding the concern about the number of figures, we acknowledge the need for better organization. To address this, we have decided to moving the majority of these maps to supplementary material 
We truly appreciate your valuable feedback, which has undoubtedly contributed to the overall improvement of our manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Thank you for all the significant improvements to this manuscript. The writing is clearer and the grammar is now sound. In particular, the abstract and the conclusions are much improved.

I still find the screenshots used in the results section to be difficult to follow and a bit messy. I appreciate that with the cropping, they are now easier to read. If you cannot successfully convey your results in another way and the other reviewers are OK with this presentation, I am fine with publication in the current form. 

Much improved from the first version. 

Author Response

We promptly conducted a thorough review of the document and meticulously addressed the required edits to ensure compliance with the specified standards. I am pleased to announce that all suggested corrections have been duly incorporated.

The latest round of adjustments to the manuscript has been denoted by green highlighting for easy identification. In response to the feedback regarding the number of figures, we recognize the importance of improved organization. Consequently, we have opted to relocate the majority of the maps/figures to the supplementary material.

We extend our gratitude for your meticulous attention to detail and invaluable assistance in refining our work to uphold the utmost standards.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Dear authors,

I consider that this scientific article is fit for publication in Fire. Reviewers' recommendations were included in this article to improve the scientific content and structure of the text.

Author Response

The valuable recommendations provided by you have been thoughtfully incorporated into the manuscript, contributing to the enhancement of its scientific content and structural integrity.
Some new minor revisions to the manuscript are marked with green highlight each time.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
We extend our gratitude for your meticulous attention to detail and invaluable assistance in refining our work to uphold the utmost standards.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1、I think we could add some icons to make the data clearer.

2、The quality of the images in the text needs to be improved, it is too monolithic and the readability is poor.

English requires minor revisions

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please kindly restructure your paper and improve your writing.   Simply running the fire behavior software is not enough.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Need to improve it.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

This article sought to investigate the effects of climate evolution on the dynamics of Greece forest fires, addressing two case studies. It is interesting, being quite explained with didactic figures that allow the replication of this research. I consider it fit for publication in fires, provided that some changes are made.

Some specific comments have been described below.

Title:

I suggest a change in the title: 

Effect of climate evolution on the dynamics of the wildfires of Greece 

Abstract:

Abstract exceeded 200 words.

Instructions for Authors: The Abstract Should Be A Total of About 200 Words Maximum.

1. Introduction

Lines 79-83: I suggest rewriting the paragraph. It has only one very long sentence.

3. Results and Discussion

The results were well explained and visually didactic about the application of the models. However, it remains to compare such results with developed studies. It is necessary to contextualize with recent studies on climate evolution and their impacts on the dynamics of forest fires in Europe. It is necessary to broaden the discussion.

4. Conclusion

Line 411: Remove the end point surplus “fires..”

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The overall study is interesting. The authors considered how climate change could potentially impact emissions of pollutants (aerosol and gaseous) from fires in Greece under future climate change scenarios. With some substantial revision, the research itself is worthy of publication. But the current manuscript has numerous issues. The writing needs to be improved in several sections of the paper, particularly sections 2.1 and 2.2. The results are poorly presented and need to be completely reimagined. And there needs to be a substantial Discussion/Conclusion section of the paper that explains why the results are interesting.

Abstract: the abstract could be improved. There is some language which is confusing: “The results of research on the predication of climate change are far from unambiguous, unequivocal and clear.” I believe the authors mean that more research is necessary on the impacts of climate change on future fire. The abstract needs to be rewritten and be more clear.

Sections 2.1 (Maggicc) and 2.2 (Scengen): Again, the writing needs to be improved in these two sections. There numerous grammatical mistakes and stilted sentences.

Results: the representation of results needs to be completely redone. First, the information should be conveyed in a bar plot. The presentation of the data in the text (one example is lines 167-172) does not highlight differences. A bar chart could compactly show how the pollutant emissions changed for each fire under each scenario. Second, the screenshots of results need to removed. For Figure 1, the visual map can be retained, but it needs to be exported as a graph and then appropriate scales included. The screenshot is a very poor way of conveying this. Figures 2-6 are very duplicative. While in theory they give different information about the spatial patterns of pollutant emissions, this information is hard to see and also is never discussed in the text. The same is true for the two sets of simulation results: Figures 7-11 and 12-16. This then all repeats for Figures 17-31. It would be possible to have two figures, one presenting each burn. After that, little is gleaned and the spatial results are not discussed.

Conclusions: The first two paragraphs (lines 384-395) simply rel-summarize the experiment. These need to be removed. That leaves only two paragraphs of Conclusions and no discussion. This needs to be greatly expanded. There needs to be some explication of why the results are interesting. For example, lines 406-407 state, “The simulations give critical information on the safety and health of people at the strategic, tactical, and operational levels.” But, there is nothing in the text to guide the reader about how fire practitioners would use the information to achieve these results.

Detailed comments.

Lines 59-62: the point is correct, but logic of this sentence is confusing. Rewrite to be clearer.

Lines 63-69: This is common knowledge and you do not need to include this paragraph. It disrupts the flow of the introduction.

Lines 79-83: you mention health in this paragraph, but only briefly. But you should at least give some information about the link between the emissions you study and air quality. 

Line 93: what are “spherical observations.”

Line 105: “eighties” do you mean 1980s? If so, write out in numbers.

Line 109: fix grammar.

Lines 115-118: since you are only providing acronyms, this information is not useful. Remove, and just give a citation for find the list of climate models that were used.

Lines 119-126: I assume in addition to give the changes in these means, some information about error/spread is also provided, since this is an ensemble forecast. Please give the spread information.

Line 138: need more information about these data sources. Should give a reference and a web link.

Lines 159-161: the logic is very confusing. 

Data Availability Statement: Need to better document the data. The study uses models, but should have citations to the data used from the models. Also, there is not enough information about the meteorology data used. Finally, the data statement is not appropriate. This statement discusses privacy or ethical issues with making the data public. There are no privacy or ethical issues with any of the data used in this study. The data should be publicly available.

Generally good, but there are some sections that need improvement. In particular, Sections 2.1 and 2.2 are quite poorly written. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf