Development of a Model to Estimate the Risk of Emission of Greenhouse Gases from Forest Fires

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewed article is devoted to a development of a new model allowing quantitative estimation of regional risk of forest fires greenhouse gas emissions. Geospatial variables are used in it to estimate the emissions in dependence from a hazard of a fire occurrence, potential fire severity and resistance of a landscape. The model was successfully  implemented in a pilot area in Mediterranean region.

After reading the article, I can't say that it has significantly weak areas. The developed model is carefully described in very good scientific language. Being in agreement with modern theoretical approaches and the results obtained by the other researchers, it undoubtedly represents a step forward in thе area of investigation.

All the cited references are relevant to the research and cover almost everything available. Because the situation with forest fires in Mediterranian region, Western US, Canada and Australia is already reflected in the references, may be it would be good idea to add something about forest fires in Russia. In this case everything known in the matter will be covered by the references.

The model has been implemented in Chelva forest district in Valencia Region (Spain) as pilot case for 2012 and for 2020. Direct comparison of the calculated values and real data obtained in the pilot region shows very good correspondence between a high emission risk level and the areas burned out in severe fires in 2012. As it is possible to conclude from the discussion chapter of the article, the presented model allows to predict how forest and landscape management may reduce the emission risks level via influence on some variables such as carbon stock, preventive infrastructure and landscape spatial heterogeneity.

The strong point of the article is also the paragraph devoted to the model's application limitations and further ways of developing of the proposed approach.

Summarizing the above mentioned, with great pleasure I would like to recommend the article for publication. I would propose to improve just two things:

1. Because Annual mean amplitude (Am) and Continentality Index (Ic) represent the same parameter, it would be better to use just one of them with aproppriate shrink of the text;

2. I would suggest to exclude the transcription of abbreviations on page 11, as they have already been disclosed in the text earlier.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your very kind and enriching comments. I have made the improvements you suggested regarding Annual mean amplitude and the exclusion of abbreviations. Please find attached the reviewed manuscript.

responses:

1. Because Annual mean amplitude (Am) and Continentality Index (Ic) represent the same parameter, it would be better to use just one of them with aproppriate shrink of the text;

Ammended

2. I would suggest to exclude the transcription of abbreviations on page 11, as they have already been disclosed in the text earlier.

Excluded

Many thanks for your time and dedication,

Kind regards,

Victoria

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript is wrtitten in a scruffy way.

Equations are difficult to read and to follow.

The model looks very well, however, I have very significant problem:

Durng the whole chapter 3 and 4 you state that it is very shown that model works. I don’t see any evidence. I can review it after I am confirmed that there is any valuable connection between your model and the result.

Please provide any measure that confirm statement that your model fit real fire incidents. There is no connection between figure 3 and figure 2. I would feel glad if I can endorse this article since I am very happy with such model. But it need some clarification.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, thanks for your time and dedication to review our manuscript. I realize we have not explained in a correct way if the connection between the mentioned chapters as it cannot be clearly observed. Sorry for the inconvenience it may have caused to your reading.

To amend it, I have included the following explanation in the manuscript for better understanding:

The model is fitting real fire incidents occurred in 2012 in the area of study, concretely, 3 fires events of big magnitude during the summer 2012 (Andilla, Chelva and Chuilla fire events) that burned a total of 27,434 ha of the Cheva Forest District.

Figure 2 shows the contour of the real forest fires (please note that Andilla fire and Chulilla fire extension was surpassing the study area of the Chelva Forest District) while Figure 3 is showing the potential GHG emission risks that Pinus halepensis forest ecosystems had in Chelva Forest District before the fire events. Overlapping both pictures, it can be observed that the up-right area where Andilla fire took place later, had a remarkably GHG emission risk, as well as Chelva lake surroundings where Chelva fire took place (middle left area). The case of Chulilla fire area is not so easily observable due to the restricted Pinus halepensis forest ecosystems areas in that part (bottom-right), but it can be appreciated that medium and high GHG emission risk were also prevailing.

Nevertheless, of course, the causes of fire ignition or real occurred fire spread is not related nor predicted by the GHG emission risk, but what we can indeed check is the level of predicted risk degree (which is different of “real emissions occurred” and different of what is considered as “fire risk”) with the places where real fires took place. Moreover, it can be observed that the GHG emission risk has been reduced in burned areas later in 2020 mainly due to carbon store decrease and fuel model change that affect the values showed by model variables.

This landscape characterization can support managers to focus prevention efforts on areas with higher GHG emissions risks to reduce the real emissions in case of future fire events as one more parameter to consider on territorial and forest management decision making processes to fight against climate change.

Reviewer 3 Report

Title: Development of a model to estimate the risk of emission of greenhouse gases from forest fires

 

By: Victoria Lerma-Arce, Celia Yagüe-Hurtado, Helena Van den Berg, Miguel García-Folgado, Jose-Vicente Oliver[1]Villanueva, Yacine Benhalima, Inês Duarte, Vanda Acácio, Francisco Rego, Eduardo López-Senespleda, María Menendez-Miguélez, Ricardo Ruiz-Peinado, Thomas Petillon, Stéphanie Jalabert, Ester Carbó-Valverde, Eugenia Gimeno-García, Rebeca Aleix-Amurrio, Edgar Lorenzo-Saez

 

Review comments

 

The authors of this manuscripts built a model to estimate the risks of emission of greenhouse gases from forest fires using geospatial variables related to potential fire severity, resistance of a landscape, value at risk, and hazards of fire occurrence. The weights of these variables were determined by Analytic Hierarchy Process. To my knowledge, this is the fewer works that deals with evaluating the risks of emission of greenhouse gases by forest fires. In general, the manuscripts were written not bad. However, there is a major issue as showed in the general comments. Therefore, I suggest a major revision.

 

General comments

 

Although the authors showed several limitations of their work, it appears that the results were not compared to other previous works, and not well discussed.

 

Specific comments

 

1.     Insert “in” after risk on the last line of page 1.

2.     P5L14: the citation of Serrada (2011) is not consistent with the format of MDPI.

3.     P8L17: the citation of (DOGV 2017 is not consistent with the format of MDPI.

4.     P10L34: change “in to” to “into”.

5.     P11L11: change “Infraestructure” to “Infrastructure”.

6.     P13L8: change “than” to “that”.

7.     P13L13:change “loose” to “lose”.

8.     Figure 6 to 21 lack legend.

9.     There are too many tables. I suggest combining figure 3 and 4 together, figure 6 to 9, fire 10 to 12, figure 13 to 15,figure 16-18, and figure 19-21 together.

10.  P23L14: change “selvilcure” to “silviculture”.

11.  P24L1: update “have updated” by “update”.

12.  P24L4: update “in” by “by”.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your enriching comments. We have made all the improvements you suggested as specific comments.  

Nevertheless, I’m very sorry to say that regarding the general comment, after a new deep article search and review, we could not find any previous work which we can compare and discuss further our results with. We consider that this is due to the innovative approach of this development, but we would appreciate very much if you could suggest us related works,

responses:

General comments: Although the authors showed several limitations of their work, it appears that the results were not compared to other previous works, and not well discussed.

A new deep articles search and review has been carried out, we could not find any previous work which we can compare and discuss further our results with. We consider that this is due to the innovative approach of this development, but we would appreciate very much if you could suggest us related works.

Specific comments

1. Insert “in” after risk on the last line of page 1. Done
2. P5L14: the citation of Serrada (2011) is not consistent with the format of MDPI. Done
3. P8L17: the citation of (DOGV 2017 is not consistent with the format of MDPI. Done
4. P10L34: change “in to” to “into”. Done
5. P11L11: change “Infraestructure” to “Infrastructure”. Done
6. P13L8: change “than” to “that”. Done
7. P13L13:change “loose” to “lose”. Done
8. Figure 6 to 21 lack legend. Done
9. There are too many tables. I suggest combining figure 3 and 4 together, figure 6 to 9, fire 10 to 12, figure 13 to 15,figure 16-18, and figure 19-21 together. Done
10. P23L14: change “selvilcure” to “silviculture”. Done
11. P24L1: update “have updated” by “update”. Done
12. P24L4: update “in” by “by”. Done

Many thanks for your time and dedication,

Kind regards,

Victoria

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

the manuscripts were well revised. therefore, I suggest an acceptance as the current form.