Flammability and Combustibility of Two Mediterranean Species in Relation to Forest Fires in Croatia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear and respective authors,

The manuscript entitled ”Flammability and combustibility of two Mediterranean species in relation to forest fires in Croatia” represent valuable study which assess in depth the aspects of flammability and combustibility of the two Mediterranean species important for the Adriatic area in Croatia: climazonal holm oak (Quercus ilex L.) and Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis Mill.), an important conifers for afforestation and reforestation. The given research is important since it validates flammability, combustibility and moisture content of the two analyzed conifers in relation to weather elements – major determinants of the exposure to fire risk and the spread of fire in the given area. In the previous round of revision, respective authors addressed most of the given comments, but not all of them (although they stated otherwise). Therefore, the manuscript still has some room for improvement in order to sustain high manuscript quality that the respective journal propagates.

I am outlining that the presented work with valuable methodology and results deserve to be considered for publishing in the Forests scientific journal, but it still has some issues needed to be addressed before this step. Below is the list with my requests for manuscript enhancement.

1. In the chapter 1. Introduction, page 1, line 30: beginning of the article should introduce the readers with the danger that forest fires pose on humans and the environment. Maybe couple of sentences can be added such as: ”As pointed out by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), Munich Reinsurance Company and the Swiss Re Group, forest fires are generally classified into a group of natural climatological disasters where wildfires are perceived as forest fires and land fires (e.g. Tošić et al. 2019).”

Additional reference: Tošić I, Mladjan D, Gavrilov MB, Zivanović S, Radaković MG, Putniković S, Petrović P, Mistridzelović IK, Marković SB (2019) Potential influence of meteorological variables on forest fire risk in Serbia during the period 2000–2017. Open Geosci 11:414–425. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2019-0033

2. In the chapter 2. Materials and Methods – subchapter 2.1 Study area, page 3, line 91: please provide geographical coordinates for the given islands. Also, in the previous round of revision my suggestion was to the respective authors was that they should provide a map, with some additional photos of the investigated area (showing the biogeographical features of the area) – comment no.4. In the latest version, the given map is pretty poor and non informative, thus the respective authors didn’t invested enough effort to correct this in a proper manner. Correct the ”Otok Rab” into ”Island of Rab”. Also display position of Croatia within European continent. This feature shoud be A) part of the figure 1. I would prefer to see physical map or satellite image of the investigated area with settlements and main roads... CORINE Land Cover map of the investigated area would be most welcomed. These two can be part B) and C) of the figure 1. I must insist on this, the maps are powerful way of illustration for the readers!

3. On page 3, line 104, subsection 2.2 Research methods: This section should start with the sentence: ”The danger of fire is a rather complex variable influenced by weather elements (major determinants of the exposure to fire risk and the spread of fire), the local topography and vegetation properties.”. Something like this was mentioned in the abstract, but topography element is not mentioned in one word, so please do insert several sentences related to this in this section.

4. In the chapter 4. Discussion, page 10, line 236-238: please provide an additional figure with displayed Quercus ilex L. and Pinus halepensis Mill. in their natural habitat within the investigated area(s). Maybe a picture of forest fires in Croatia for a provisional period can be effective as well.

5. In the chapter 4. Discussion, page 10, line 246-249: the IPCC stands for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, not the International Panel on Climate Change. Please correct the typo, and use the newest assessment report, the one from 2001 is way too outdated.

6. In the chapter 5. Conclusions, page 12, line 300: in the sentence ”This should facilitate mapping fire risk, particularly in forest ecosystems with a known threat of fire.” please add in the bracket (with utilization of Geographic Information System tools and remote sensing-based methodologies) after … mapping fire risk… The enhanced sentence should be: ”This should facilitate mapping fire risk (with utilization of Geographic Information System tools and remote sensing-based methodologies), particularly in forest ecosystems with a known threat of fire.”

7. Reference list should be slightly enhanced due to the comment 1.

After the above mentioned suggestions for improvement are implemented into the manuscript, I highly suggest to the Editorial Board of Forests scientific journal to consider it for publication. It certainly has great potential considering the research field and methodological approaches.

Kind regards!

Author Response

Dear and respective authors,

The manuscript entitled ”Flammability and combustibility of two Mediterranean species in relation to forest fires in Croatia” represent valuable study which assess in depth the aspects of flammability and combustibility of the two Mediterranean species important for the Adriatic area in Croatia: climazonal holm oak (Quercus ilex L.) and Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis Mill.), an important conifers for afforestation and reforestation. The given research is important since it validates flammability, combustibility and moisture content of the two analyzed conifers in relation to weather elements – major determinants of the exposure to fire risk and the spread of fire in the given area. In the previous round of revision, respective authors addressed most of the given comments, but not all of them (although they stated otherwise). Therefore, the manuscript still has some room for improvement in order to sustain high manuscript quality that the respective journal propagates.

I am outlining that the presented work with valuable methodology and results deserve to be considered for publishing in the Forests scientific journal, but it still has some issues needed to be addressed before this step. Below is the list with my requests for manuscript enhancement.

 

1. In the chapter 1. Introduction, page 1, line 30: beginning of the article should introduce the readers with the danger that forest fires pose on humans and the environment. Maybe couple of sentences can be added such as: ”As pointed out by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), Munich Reinsurance Company and the Swiss Re Group, forest fires are generally classified into a group of natural climatological disasters where wildfires are perceived as forest fires and land fires (e.g. Tošić et al. 2019).” – corrected in article

Additional reference: Tošić I, Mladjan D, Gavrilov MB, Zivanović S, Radaković MG, Putniković S, Petrović P, Mistridzelović IK, Marković SB (2019) Potential influence of meteorological variables on forest fire risk in Serbia during the period 2000–2017. Open Geosci 11:414–425. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2019-0033

 

2. In the chapter 2. Materials and Methods – subchapter 2.1 Study area, page 3, line 91: please provide geographical coordinates for the given islands. Also, in the previous round of revision my suggestion was to the respective authors was that they should provide a map, with some additional photos of the investigated area (showing the biogeographical features of the area) – comment no.4. In the latest version, the given map is pretty poor and non informative, thus the respective authors didn’t invested enough effort to correct this in a proper manner. Correct the ”Otok Rab” into ”Island of Rab”. Also display position of Croatia within European continent. This feature shoud be A) part of the figure 1. I would prefer to see physical map or satellite image of the investigated area with settlements and main roads... CORINE Land Cover map of the investigated area would be most welcomed. These two can be part B) and C) of the figure 1. I must insist on this, the maps are powerful way of illustration for the readers! - corrected in article

 

3. On page 3, line 104, subsection 2.2 Research methods: This section should start with the sentence: ”The danger of fire is a rather complex variable influenced by weather elements (major determinants of the exposure to fire risk and the spread of fire), the local topography and vegetation properties.”. Something like this was mentioned in the abstract, but topography element is not mentioned in one word, so please do insert several sentences related to this in this section. - corrected in article

 

4. In the chapter 4. Discussion, page 10, line 236-238: please provide an additional figure with displayed Quercus ilex L. and Pinus halepensis Mill. in their natural habitat within the investigated area(s). Maybe a picture of forest fires in Croatia for a provisional period can be effective as well. - corrected in article

 

5. In the chapter 4. Discussion, page 10, line 246-249: the IPCC stands for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, not the International Panel on Climate Change. Please correct the typo, and use the newest assessment report, the one from 2001 is way too outdated. - corrected in article

 

6. In the chapter 5. Conclusions, page 12, line 300: in the sentence ”This should facilitate mapping fire risk, particularly in forest ecosystems with a known threat of fire.” please add in the bracket (with utilization of Geographic Information System tools and remote sensing-based methodologies) after … mapping fire risk… The enhanced sentence should be: ”This should facilitate mapping fire risk (with utilization of Geographic Information System tools and remote sensing-based methodologies), particularly in forest ecosystems with a known threat of fire.” - corrected in article

 

7. Reference list should be slightly enhanced due to the comment 1. - corrected in article

 

After the above mentioned suggestions for improvement are implemented into the manuscript, I highly suggest to the Editorial Board of Forests scientific journal to consider it for publication. It certainly has great potential considering the research field and methodological approaches.

Kind regards!

 

Note: Dear, thank you very much for the constructive and commendable comments that have led to raising the level of the article to a higher level.

 

Kind regards,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Despite the fact that a similar study of these species and areas has not been conducted the work leaves a feeling of secondary and confirmation of known facts.

A study of the relationship with climatic parameters is stated, but in the article the main emphasis is on the relationship with the humidity of combustible material.

Comments and questions:

p.71 – “content if fuel” may be “of fuel”?

Figure 1 – may be it is better to add borders of other countries for better understanding geographical position of study area?

P 247 – IPCC is not in the reference list and is not correctly referenced

 TI and DC might be explained in details in methodology. How it was measured?

One of the stated aim of the study is to analyze the impacts of climatic factors (temperature, humidity and precipitation) on the flammability and combustibility but in n the work this climatic variables are analyzed in group in multiply regression. Why there is no usual linear regression for climatic variables?

In discussion it is said that moisture content is the only factor influencing on the flammability and it is connected with climatic condition. However, in the work there is no shown connection between LFMC and climate.

Also regression analysis shows no influence of climatic condition on the TI and DC, but LFMC is dependent variable of this values as it was said earlier.

So there are some questions:

*–        is the result correct for regression analysis with using dependent variable?

–-        why don’t make an analysis without LFMC, only with climate data?

 

Author Response

Despite the fact that a similar study of these species and areas has not been conducted the work leaves a feeling of secondary and confirmation of known facts.

A study of the relationship with climatic parameters is stated, but in the article the main emphasis is on the relationship with the humidity of combustible material.

Comments and questions:

p.71 – “content if fuel” may be “of fuel”? – corrected in article

Figure 1 – may be it is better to add borders of other countries for better understanding geographical position of study area? - corrected in article

P 247 – IPCC is not in the reference list and is not correctly referenced - corrected in article

 TI and DC might be explained in details in methodology. How it was measured? - corrected in article

 

One of the stated aim of the study is to analyze the impacts of climatic factors (temperature, humidity and precipitation) on the flammability and combustibility but in n the work this climatic variables are analyzed in group in multiply regression. Why there is no usual linear regression for climatic variables?

The data processing included statistical analyzes according to hypotheses that determine the influence of climatic factors (temperature, humidity and precipitation) on flammability and flammability. The first part of the statistical processing included the calculation of linear correlation coefficients, which determined that there are certain statistical influences, which is evident from the results. As the next step, we decided on a multiple regression, in order to determine the mentioned influences. This is also the reason why we did not use the usual linear regression, and an additional reason is because we used linear correlation coefficients.

In discussion it is said that moisture content is the only factor influencing on the flammability and it is connected with climatic condition. However, in the work there is no shown connection between LFMC and climate.

In the discussion, an effort was made to highlight the influence of LFMC, both on TI and DC, which is confirmed by the results of linear correlation coefficients and multiple regression TI of holm oak on the island of Rab (table 4). In the discussion, it was stated that LFMC best determines the fuel's ability to ignite (which is also confirmed by the results of linear coefficients), and if it ignites, how effective the combustion will be after ignition. It is also stated that changes in moisture content are related to atmospheric conditions and available moisture in the soil on the one hand, and to the ecophysical characteristics of the species on the other hand, as well as living conditions in the past.

Also regression analysis shows no influence of climatic condition on the TI and DC, but LFMC is dependent variable of this values as it was said earlier.

The results shown in Table 4 show that, in addition to the influence of LFMC on TI, holm oaks on the island of Rab have a mean monthly max. and min. temperature, while in Makarska, in addition to the influence of LFMC on the TI of holm oak, there is also the amount of precipitation. Table 7 shows that the DC of the holm oak in Makarska next to the LFMC is influenced by the mean monthly max. temperature.

So there are some questions:

*–        is the result correct for regression analysis with using dependent variable?

Our thoughts and assumptions and hypotheses suggest that we can conclude that the result is correct for regression analysis using the dependent variable on the one hand, although on the other hand, different statistical hypothesis settings give different results, and only small changes give different results, what then of an individual and subjective character, and depending on the fundamental assumptions of the initial hypotheses.

–-        why don’t make an analysis without LFMC, only with climate data?

We are of the opinion that if we were to do analyzes with climate data alone, we would not fulfill our starting hypothesis, which is to see which factors affect flammability and flammability, including LFMC. By including LFMC, we determined where and what its impact on LFMC is, that is, where this impact is statistically significant and where it is not.

 

 

Note: Dear, thank you very much for the constructive and commendable comments that have led to raising the level of the article to a higher level.

 

Kind regards,

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

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

Please see the attached file (FinalReview.docx)

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Dear and respective authors,

The manuscript entitled Flammability and combustibility of two Mediterranean species in relation to forest fires in Croatia represent valuable study which assess in depth the aspects of flammability and combustibility of the two Mediterranean species important for the Adriatic area in Croatia: climazonal holm oak (Quercus ilex L.) and Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis Mill.), an important conifers for afforestation and reforestation in the Mediterranean region.

Although the presented work with valuable methodology and results deserve to be considered for publishing in the Forests scientific journal, it still has some issues needed to be addressed before this step. Below is the list with my suggestions for manuscript enhancement.

1. In the section keywords, "Croatia" should be added before the last keyword.

2. Introduction part should be enhanced a bit. The authors should start the line 29, page 1 with some climate change information related to the SE Europe and Mediterranean region being recognized as a prominent part of Europe where the intensity of climate impacts is expected to be severe, defining this region as a potential “hotspot”.

3. Line 66, page 2: reference no 37 is quite old, please enhance it with the work of: Novkovic, I.; Markovic, G.B.; Lukic, D.; Dragicevic, S.; Milosevic, M.; Djurdjic, S.; Samardzic, I.; Lezaic, T.; Tadic, M. GIS-Based Forest Fire Susceptibility Zonation with IoT Sensor Network Support, Case Study—Nature Park Golija, Serbia. Sensors 2021, 21, 6520. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21196520 and Lukić, T.; Marić, P.; Hrnjak, I.; Gavrilov, M.B.; Mladjan, D.; Zorn, M.; Komac, B.; Milošević, Z.; Marković, S.B.; Sakulski, D.; et al. Forest fire analysis and classification based on Serbian case study. Acta Geogr. Slov. 2017, 57, 51–63. https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.918

4. Line 78, page 2: within the subsection 2.1 Study area, the respective authors should provide a map, with some additional photos of the investigated area (showing the biogeographical features of the area). Unfortunately, Figure 1 is not displayed in the given text…

5. Line 91, page 3, at the end of subsection 2.2. Research methods, please provide additional figure- workflow chart in order to better illustrate the complex number of steps and procedures used in this research. This can help a wider audience to better visualize the effort which respective authors invested in this research.

6. Results and discussion parts are generally fine.

7. Line 309, page 11: Conclusion part should be enhanced a bit. The authors should clearly point out not only the advantages of the used methods, but also certain limitations with some future steps that can be performed in future studies.

8. Reference list should be enhanced!

After the above mentioned suggestions for improvement are implemented into the manuscript, I highly suggest to the Editorial Board of Forests scientific journal to consider it for publication. It certainly has great potential considering the research field and methodological approaches.

Kind regards!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have made efforts to response to my comments in the first-round of review.