Fire-Environment Analysis: An Example of Army Garrison Camp Williams, Utah
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
An interesting paper about interactions of fire and its environment in
north-central Utah. The paper is relevant to the aims and scope of the journal.
The methodology for define fire behavior fuel models as well as the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS) is not clear. Please give more details about how we're calculated, what variables were included, what weight was assigned...
The paper would gain more visibility if some supplementary figures were integrated into the text, such as Figure S2. Flow chart of the methodology used to map vegetation types and Anderson.
Author Response
An interesting paper about interactions of fire and its environment in
north-central Utah. The paper is relevant to the aims and scope of the journal.
The methodology for define fire behavior fuel models as well as the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS) is not clear. Please give more details about how we're calculated, what variables were included, what weight was assigned...
We have added some clarification to the use of NFDRS classes, mainly by adding Figures S2 and S4 from the supplement to the manuscript. We have also clarified the language regarding the use of the Anderson (1982) fuel models.
The paper would gain more visibility if some supplementary figures were integrated into the text, such as Figure S2. Flow chart of the methodology used to map vegetation types and Anderson.
We agree, and have taken the reviewers recommendation and added both Figure S2 (& Figure S4) to the text.
Reviewer 2 Report
With this manuscript, Frost et al model fuels across a study site in Utah and consider how the interactions of the fuels and terrain could affect fire behavior across the site. I found the manuscript generally well-written and it appears to be a sound analysis of the data. I have only a few minor points for improving the manuscript.
First, at times the text is difficult to follow due to the passive, complex, and often long sentence structure. A good review of the manuscript for places to improve clarity and simplify the sentence structure is warranted. For example, lines 61 to 70 in the introduction I found myself rereading several times. It needs some editing.
Secondly, the methods does a good job outlining the data sources, but more detail could be added regarding how the different variables collected were used to estimate the components of the predicted fire behavior (section 2.5). Essentially, I'm looking for a separate data analysis section as most of that detail of how the different variables were brought together gets lost within each of the respective sections in the methods.
Lastly, I realize that it's convention, but the use of "fire behavior fuel model" should be reviewed throughout the ms and in the figures. Are that many words (or more when it's "Anderson fire behavior fuel model map") needed? Why not say fuel map? or potential fire behavior map? Really, the Anderson model predict five types of fire behavior based on the site terrain and fuel types. Simple, summary sentences like these are needed as guideposts for clarity throughout.
Author Response
With this manuscript, Frost et al model fuels across a study site in Utah and consider how the interactions of the fuels and terrain could affect fire behavior across the site. I found the manuscript generally well-written and it appears to be a sound analysis of the data. I have only a few minor points for improving the manuscript.
First, at times the text is difficult to follow due to the passive, complex, and often long sentence structure. A good review of the manuscript for places to improve clarity and simplify the sentence structure is warranted. For example, lines 61 to 70 in the introduction I found myself rereading several times. It needs some editing.
We have gone overt lines 61 to 70 to improve clarity. Furthermore, we have gone back over the entire manuscript in an attempt to improve clarity.
Secondly, the methods does a good job outlining the data sources, but more detail could be added regarding how the different variables collected were used to estimate the components of the predicted fire behavior (section 2.5). Essentially, I'm looking for a separate data analysis section as most of that detail of how the different variables were brought together gets lost within each of the respective sections in the methods.
We have added some detail to section 2.5 to explain how the pocket guide and photo guide were developed. Moving Figures S2 and S4 to the main text should also to further explain the pocket guide. The description of how the pocket guide is used is in the last paragraph of the Discussion.
Lastly, I realize that it's convention, but the use of "fire behavior fuel model" should be reviewed throughout the ms and in the figures. Are that many words (or more when it's "Anderson fire behavior fuel model map") needed? Why not say fuel map? or potential fire behavior map? Really, the Anderson model predict five types of fire behavior based on the site terrain and fuel types. Simple, summary sentences like these are needed as guideposts for clarity throughout.
We have gone through the manuscript and shortened many of these phrases to “FBFM”, making sure they are first appropriately designated.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled 'Fire-environment analysis: an example of Army Garrison Camp Williams, Utah' by Frost et al. is quite interesting and suitable for the journal for potential consideration. However, may I suggest to include a sub-section on highlight the fact that the fire risk/danger is quite dynamic in nature in 'discussion'. In order to substantiate this, the authors may consider the following articles that may be useful:
- Ahmed et al. Processing of Near Real Time Land Surface Temperature and Its Application in Forecasting Forest Fire Danger Conditions. Sensors 2020, 20, 984. and related references.
- Stefanidou et al. Midterm Fire Danger Prediction Using Satellite Imagery and Auxiliary Thematic Layers. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2786.
- Matin et al. Understanding forest fire patterns and risk in Nepal using remote sensing, geographic information system and historical fire data. Int. J. Wildland Fire. 2017. 26, 276-286.
Author Response
The manuscript entitled 'Fire-environment analysis: an example of Army Garrison Camp Williams, Utah' by Frost et al. is quite interesting and suitable for the journal for potential consideration. However, may I suggest to include a sub-section on highlight the fact that the fire risk/danger is quite dynamic in nature in 'discussion'. In order to substantiate this, the authors may consider the following articles that may be useful:
- Ahmed et al. Processing of Near Real Time Land Surface Temperature and Its Application in Forecasting Forest Fire Danger Conditions. Sensors 2020, 20, 984. and related references.
- Stefanidou et al. Midterm Fire Danger Prediction Using Satellite Imagery and Auxiliary Thematic Layers. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2786.
- Matin et al. Understanding forest fire patterns and risk in Nepal using remote sensing, geographic information system and historical fire data. Int. J. Wildland Fire. 2017. 26, 276-286.
We have added some language to the Discussion about the dynamic nature of fire risk, and incorporated 2 of the 5 suggested papers above that we deemed were appropriate for our discussion (c and e).
