Fire Protection Principles and Recommendations in Disturbed Forest Areas in Central Europe: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. In line 72, it states that tornadoes rarely increase the number of disturbance events in Central European forests, citing Seidl et al. 2014; Seidl et al. 2017; Patacca et al. 2022. However, the text does not provide any specific information or findings from these sources to support this claim.

2. In line 79, it mentions that the structure and condition of Central European forests have become significantly stressed due to more frequent incidences of drought and higher numbers of tropical days, citing Krejza et al. 2021; Vacek et al. 2023. Again, the text does not provide any specific information or findings from these sources to back up this statement.

3. In line 88, it states that during timber processing in disaster zones, typical phenomena often occur, but it does not provide any specific references or studies to support this claim.

4. In line 100, it mentions the highly increased risk of forest fires in outbreak areas, citing various sources such as Cohen 2000; Franklin and Agee 2003, Jenkins et al. 2008; Black et al. 2013; Omi 2015. However, the text does not provide any specific information or findings from these sources to justify the claim.

5. To strengthen the text, it would be beneficial to include specific information, data, or findings from the cited sources that directly support the claims made in each instance. This would enhance the credibility and reliability of the information presented. Additionally, in line 161, where it states "citation," a specific reference should be provided to support the claim about small-scale disturbances caused by floods or geological hazards in Central Europe.

6. Lack of clarity and context: The text mentions "disturbance" without clearly specifying the type or cause of the disturbance. It refers to "disaster zones" without explaining what kind of disasters are being referred to. Providing more context and clarity would help readers better understand the discussion on forest fire risk.

7. Incomplete information: The text briefly mentions increasing sunlight on the forest surface due to tree degradation, particularly after bark beetle outbreaks, as a problem that increases the ignition probability. However, it does not provide further explanation or evidence regarding this phenomenon, such as the specific mechanisms or impacts involved. Expanding on this point would provide a more comprehensive understanding.

8. Lack of connection between the third problem and forest fire risk: The text introduces damaged or destroyed infrastructure in disaster zones, such as forest roads or water supply points, as a problem. However, it does not explicitly explain how this relates to the increased risk of forest fires. Providing a clear explanation or supporting evidence would strengthen the argument.

9. by incorporating specific information, data, or findings from the cited sources to support the claims made, providing more detailed statistics or evidence regarding the risks involved, and offering further explanations for the listed recommendations, the text would be strengthened in terms of credibility and reliability.

10. In lines 298-309, the text discusses the selection of experienced forest workers and the use of appropriate technology for timber processing in the disaster area. While it is mentioned that accidents and deaths are unfortunately not uncommon in forest work, citing Durbin et al. (2019), Klun and Medved (2007), Dvořák et al. (2011), and Szewczyk et al. (2014), it would be helpful to include specific statistics or evidence from these sources to further highlight the importance of safety measures and the potential risks involved in timber processing in disturbed areas.

11. The text primarily focuses on the negative aspects and risks associated with forest fires in disturbed areas. It would be beneficial to provide a more balanced perspective by including potential mitigating factors or strategies that can reduce the risks mentioned.

12. While the text acknowledges the need to consider local conditions in fire protection measures, it does not provide specific guidance or considerations for different habitats or locations. Including more specific recommendations tailored to different contexts would enhance the practicality and effectiveness of the proposed measures.

13. Inconsistent formatting and numbering: The text contains inconsistent formatting and numbering, which can make it less organized and harder to follow. Ensuring consistency in formatting and numbering would improve the readability of the text.

Extensive grammatical correction is needed. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I want to say thank you for your comments. It really helped me to improve the whole manuscript. I think it is more readable now, more flowing, and logically structured. I deleted unnecessary information and repetitions, strictly focusing on prevention and preparedness problems. I excluded paragraphs about suppression because I found out it does not suit the topic of the manuscript. 

I also tried to solve citation problems and improve formatting, and numbering. 

Based on discussion with co-authors I replaced disaster area with disturbed area, and I tried to define what disturbed area means in the introduction. I also replaced fire risk with fire danger, since fire risk includes socio-economic demand.

The main idea of the manuscript is to introduce what happens after a disturbance related to fire danger, to give advice on how to deal with this disturbance, and to explain why spontaneously developed forests are in Central European conditions the most dangerous environment in relation to fire protection. I am trying to focus mostly on fire protection, and how to do it in relation to fire protection (now and in the future). It is not about criticizing these management practices of spontaneously developed forests but giving an explanation of why it is so dangerous. 

I also tried to improve my English. Before submission American Journal Experts company helped me improve my English in the manuscript. 

I hope that my time spent improving the manuscript reflects its quality and you will be more satisfied than the previous time.

Best regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript creates a record of current approaches to forest regeneration and fire protection in Central European countries, providing a previously unavailable composite of policies in a unified international language. Results are intended to help government units in adopting effective fire management approaches and coordinate these efforts across units. As such, it could provide an important contribution to fire prevention and planning in Central Europe. But, it is not yet written in a way that is easy to read and understand. Overall, it is fairly well written and well supported in individual sections, but does not hang together as a whole. I recommend condensing much of the text and re-ordering information in many areas for clarity as well as assigning a lead editor on the writing team to ensure consistency of style, citation density, and formatting across sections.

 

Some specific notes:

The introduction and following sections on forest vulnerability etc. are good, but perhaps a bit long-winded. You also jump back and forth between ideas some. I suggest condensing them, and in some cases using one rather than two cites or two rather than four—it is great to support assertions, but it is very heavily cited. (For example “These stands are thus an ideal target for attack by bark beetles (Hlásny et al. 2019; Hlásny et al. 2021a).”—does this really need two citations?)

 

The language around disasters vs. disturbance agents is confusing. “Forest fires postdisaster” brings to mind the idea of compounding disasters like fire then mudslide, or hurricane then flooding- you do specify that you mean windthrow and bark beetle outbreak areas, but I would suggest choosing wording other than postdisaster areas for clarity. Conflating weather-related and living natural disturbance agents in one phrase is not the norm. Perhaps a term like “in existing areas of forest disturbance” or “in areas of forest mortality caused by disturbance agents or natural hazards” might help clarify. Or just make a clear statement up front that “disturbed forest areas” refers to areas affected by X, Y, and Z, then keep the discussions of the disturbance factors separated for clarity. Despite your subheadings some of your information is currently interwoven. This interweaving of information is a problem throughout the article—first you discuss windthrow, then how to harvest timber in disturbed areas—then move to beetle kill, again with recommendations, but in a completely different format. Some of the recommendations are the same and some are specific to the disturbance. Perhaps this could be highlighted in a table, providing clarity and saving body text length at the same time.

The section on ‘Forest fire protection’ that starts on pg. 6 could use subheadings to differentiate either by geographic area or some other point you are trying to make—right now it goes back and forth between countries in a way that is a bit confusing.

Why is the windthrow section not part of the information on increasing risk of forest fires after disaster? You refer to fuel loading etc. in both.

Some information is repetitive (i.e. paraphrase of pg. 9—use the most experienced workers, use mechanical means if able, if not use the most experienced workers)

What is the point of including the info that timber processing is risky? How does that relate to recommendations/policy?

The abstract provides a tighter overview of the article than is provided in the body, and in some cases does not seem to match. There seems to be a lot of information that relates not to understanding overall policies, but to providing recommendations for how to approach disturbed areas to prevent fires. This is useful information, but the main thrust of the article should be clarified and carry throughout. Existing policy and practical recommendations are two different foci.

The practical recommendations are easy to understand and make sense based on the preceding information, but I am not clear of the difference between intervention and strategic. Strategic has an introduction, although somewhat vague, but intervention does not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I want to say thank you for your comments. It really helped me to improve the whole manuscript. I think it is more readable now, more flowing, and logically structured. I deleted unnecessary information and repetitions, strictly focusing on prevention and preparedness problems. I excluded paragraphs about suppression because I found out it does not suit the topic of the manuscript. I also tried to improve the abstract and conclusion. I can say it was really major revision. 

I also tried to solve citation problems and improve formatting, and numbering. 

Based on discussion with co-authors I replaced disaster area with disturbed area, and I tried to define what disturbed area means in the introduction. I also replaced fire risk with fire danger, since fire risk includes socio-economic demand.

The main idea of the manuscript is to introduce what happens after a disturbance related to fire danger, to give advice on how to deal with this disturbance, and to explain why spontaneously developed forests are in Central European conditions the most dangerous environment in relation to fire protection. I am trying to focus mostly on fire protection, and how to do it in relation to fire protection (now and in the future). It is not about criticizing these management practices of spontaneously developed forests but giving an explanation of why it is so dangerous. 

I also tried to improve my English. Before submission American Journal Experts company helped me improve my English in the manuscript. 

I hope that my time spent improving the manuscript reflects its quality and you will be more satisfied than the previous time.

Best regards,

Roman Bercak

Reviewer 3 Report

The results and conclusions are preceded by a high-quality literature review on the research topic. 

Cited literature is limited to certain parts of the world.

Results are really scattered and conclusions given by the authors are sometimes not aligned with the results.

The question is related to the possibility of comparing the obtained results in this work, since in the discussion section a large number of conclusions does not always rely on regulated government programs. This implies the need for additional verification with the available data in the literature.

This manuscript contains errors in the design of the test. In particular, links to the works of other authors are not indicated, and the citation is not organized. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I want to say thank you for your comments. It really helped me to improve the whole manuscript. I think it is more readable now, more flowing, and logically structured. I deleted unnecessary information and repetitions, strictly focusing on prevention and preparedness problems. I excluded paragraphs about suppression because I found out it does not suit the topic of the manuscript. I also tried to improve the abstract and conclusion. I can say it was really major revision. 

I also tried to solve citation problems and improve formatting, and numbering. 

Based on discussion with co-authors I replaced disaster area with disturbed area, and I tried to define what disturbed area means in the introduction. I also replaced fire risk with fire danger, since fire risk includes socio-economic demand.

The main idea of the manuscript is to introduce what happens after a disturbance related to fire danger, to give advice on how to deal with this disturbance, and to explain why spontaneously developed forests are in Central European conditions the most dangerous environment in relation to fire protection. I am trying to focus mostly on fire protection, and how to do it in relation to fire protection (now and in the future). It is not about criticizing these management practices of spontaneously developed forests but giving an explanation of why it is so dangerous. 

I also tried to improve my English. Before submission American Journal Experts company helped me improve my English in the manuscript. 

I hope that my time spent improving the manuscript reflects its quality and you will be more satisfied than the previous time.

Best regards,

Roman Bercak

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript should be accepted after minor revision. In general, there are areas for improvement in both the language and content of the paper. The authors should conduct a critical analysis and interpret the studies presented in order to conclude each section. Additionally, certain claims made in the discussion lack supporting references. To conclude, the paper requires careful revision before being considered for publication in a high-impact journal.  I am at your disposal for any clarification. 

It is required English grammatical and syntax improvement.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I ordered English re-editing in American Journal Experts (www.aje.com). Hopefully, they will solve all the language problems in our manuscript.

I will try to conclude every section with supporting studies and overall solve all minor problems. Could you please specify, what you consider to be the biggest problem in the content of the manuscript?

Thank you for your cooperation and help.

Best regards,

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, the revisions address the issues brought up in the previous review. The authors seem to have worked to clarify the information and order of information in the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I am really pleased that my time spent on major revision improved the quality of the manuscript. Now, I am processing re-editing of English by American Journal Experts (www.aje.com), solving some minor problems, and then the manuscript will be prepared for publication.

Thank you for your cooperation and help to improve the manuscript.

Best regards,