How Does Fire Suppression Alter the Wildfire Regime? A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.The introduction should provide a clearer and more concise background to the study. The authors should clearly state the motivation for the research and highlight the gap in current knowledge that their study aims to address.

2. The conclusion should be more comprehensive. The authors should provide a summary of their main findings, the limitations of the study, and recommendations for future research.

3. The language and grammar of the full text should be improved to improve clarity and readability. 

4. The abstract of the article needs to be revised, and the importance of the article should be highlighted. More latest references need to be supplemented. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2023.1249617; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15193442; https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2023.1242462

Overall, through these improvements, the manuscript can be accepted to be published.

The language and grammar of the full text should be improved to improve clarity and readability. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Minor corrections

- in the abstract - line 18- "systematic review was conducted" - replace it with past perfect "has been" conducted to show that the researched has been finished already at the time you wrote the paper.

-Lines 18 and 19- that phrase is too long and loses the topic. Finish the idea with "wildfires regimes" (line 19 ) and write another sentence:  "37 empirical studies have been selected, of which, 19 met the determined criteria."

-Correct the figure references by including the number of the figure- for ex. Figure 8 -D. Check all Figure ref from line 333-379 and include the number of the figure all over.

-line 562- rephrase "findings not found elsewhere"

-line 691 -ref nr. 47 -check the settings. It looks different style.

I recommend some minor changes (see the review comments) regarding the topic of certain phrases. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The reviewer recognizes the author's efforts. Because the text is timely, it is engaging. The concluding analysis will aid designers and pave the way for future study. The reviewer agrees with the study's findings. The research is exhaustive and matches the description of the work required for such a publication; therefore, the paper may be suitable for publication. The manuscript is concise, relevant, and presented in the proper sequence. The manuscript is scientifically acceptable. The conclusion is reasonable.

Before the work is accepted, it is suggested that the authors address the following topics in detail:

Comments and remarks:

1.      Figures 2. and 3. are difficult to read.

2.      In lines 333, 344, and 354, there are issues with the figure references.

3.      The "Figure –(capital letter)" in lines 359, 368, 371, 375, 377, 378, 481, 517, 518, 521, and 523 refers to Figure 8.?

4.      Check and/or revise Table 1 so that the abbreviations and numbers do not break into new lines.

5.      The reviewer suggests implementing more references from the specific journal articles. There is only one "Fire" mention found.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In the present study, a systematic review was conducted to screen 974 studies on the relationship between fire suppression and wildfire regimes, which selected 37 empirical studies that met the determined criteria. The study areas of the literature were quantitatively analyzed, along with study designs and methods and the impact of fire suppression on wildfire regimes. This paper needs to be improved with the following recommended changes before being considered for publication. Please see below my comments.

1 The description of wildfires in Introduction should be further expanded.

2 The research significance of this paper needs to be further supplemented.

3 Which country experiences the most wildfires in the world? This article should consider the regional limitations of articles published by authors from different countries.

4 I don't think analyzing and drawing conclusions from only 37 articles shows the rigor of this paper.

5 Can some suggestions for wildfire suppression be proposed based on the research findings?

6 I recommend the authors include “future work” as well as the importance of this work in relation to practical applications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Reviewer’s comments on fire-2672998

1. The authors should explain the effect and influence mechanism of fire suppression on wildfire regimes in detail.

2. The authors mentioned that wildfire suppression might lead to vegetation intrusion and accumulation of flammable biomass, while how are these factors related to the occurrence and scale of wildfires? Are there any other factors that affect the occurrence and size of wildfires?

3. As for the content “Assessment methods: We included quantitative analysis based on the empirical data or wildfire process simulation modeling for wildfire behaviors or risks.”, the authors should provide more details. BTW, as for a review article, write in passive tense, rather than active.

4. The outlook for the future work should be added in the Conclusions section. BTW, there are some typos, and it is suggested to revise the previous Conclusion to Conclusions, and the authors should carefully proof-read the entire manuscript.

Moderate editing of English language required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

None

Reviewer 5 Report

Most of the comments have been addressed. 

Moderate editing of English language required.