Joint Analysis of Lightning-Induced Forest Fire and Surface Influence Factors in the Great Xing’an Range

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article is very interesting and fits the scope of FORESTS. Some parts still need to be perfected related to the methods and their references. More details are as follows:

·      Line 34-40 needs to be supported by relevant references

·      L. 67 repeats the sentence in L.34?

·      L. 67-89 should be compacted or removed

·      The introduction is too long; it should focus on describing the different linear regression models used in this study, the criteria for choosing the best models, and the advantages of using GTWR. Please state the benefits of this research.

·      Abbreviations should be explained when first mentioned: L.155 LAI, L.208 NDVI, L.224 OLS

·      L 158-171 need references.

·      Sentences that mention (for the first time) a picture or table should be placed before the figure or table. For example, L.158-162 should be moved after L.152. See also for Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and Table 2, 3.

·      L 221-248 need reference/s.

·      L 263-294 need reference/s.

·      L 354 Please state consideration and reference for selecting 7, 14, and 30 days before the fire.

·      L 491-492 need reference/s.

·      Based on the results and discussion, state what recommendations can be given to stakeholders related to forest fire control.

·      L 584-592 can be deleted. Go straight to the contents of the conclusions. Make sure the conclusions should answer the research objectives: (1) test different linear regression models in analyzing spatiotemporal heterogeneity of the impact of factors on fire activities, (2) find the relationship between surface influence factors and fire activities, and (3) explore the spatiotemporal patterns of fire activities.

·      Citations and references should follow the MDPI template.

·      Use the track-changes format in revising the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors!
I think your article is interesting for readers of Forests journal.
But at present time manuscript has some disadvantages.

 

Introduction

This section is well-ogranized and section content with background information is sufficient for this article.

The time period from 1980 to 2020 is a sufficient time to make some conclusions.

 

Materials and Methodologies

Data sources are suitable for this research.

 

Please, revise Explanatory factors in Table 1. You wrote about lightnings as a main ignition factor. You must use some lightnings parameters in your research. For example, density of lightnings flashes over considered region. You can use, for example, WWLLN data accessible over the world. Your research has methodological error without consideration of lightning flashes.

Please, support why did you use wavelet transformation as data processing. I think it is not abligatory to use such preprocessing.

Please, support why did you choose GTWR method for this research.

PLease, describe Figure 2 in text.

 

Results

Please, revise Table 2. You must use lightning parameters in your research to determine fire occurrence with GTWR method. At present time your research is poorly sounding.

 

I think at present time section 3.3 has a methodological errors. Please, use lightning parameters like flashes density over the considered region. At present time presented comparison of models in Table 3 is not acceptable.

 

Discussion

Please, revise this section taking into account with new results considering lightning parameters.

 

Conclusion must be formulated using new results considering lightning parameters.

 

References

This section is acceptable.

 

I think current version of manuscript is not acceptable for publication in Forests journal.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been improved according to the reviewers' corrections and suggestions. A little note: "Figure 3c" should be corrected (line 341 in the pdf document).

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors!

Thank you for manuscript improvements.

I fully satisfied with provided remarks, explanations and changes.