Characterizing Forest Fuel Properties and Potential Wildfire Dynamics in Xiuwu, Henan, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study conducted measurements of combustible materials (moisture content ratio, ignition point, and calorific value) across 14 representative sites. based on the forest fuel properties, the potential wildfire dynamics in Xiuwu was analyzed. There are some comments to be considered.

1. The paper is more inclined to statistic analysis. The pyrolysis models about the wildfire dynamics should be introduced in detail. 

2. The simulation results about spread rate and flame height, should to be compared with experimental data or previous results. More references about the wildfire should be added.

3. How to establish the ignition probability of different materials? 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good

Author Response

Reviewer:1(Round 1)

This study conducted measurements of combustible materials (moisture content ratio, ignition point, and calorific value) across 14 representative sites. based on the forest fuel properties, the potential wildfire dynamics in Xiuwu was analyzed. There are some comments to be considered.

1. The paper is more inclined to statistic analysis. The pyrolysis models about the wildfire dynamics should be introduced in detail.

Thanks to the reviewer's suggestion, we detail the model for conducting dynamic fire behavior measurements for wildfires in the paper, see lines 291 to 339.

2. The simulation results about spread rate and flame height, should to be compared with experimental data or previous results. More references about the wildfire should be added.

Thanks to the reviewer's suggestion, we added a sensitivity analysis to the paper to compare the results of the simulations with the experimental data, see lines 599 to 627. And more references on fire dynamics, combustion processes, etc. were introduced to consolidate our study, see lines 60 to 75.

3. How to establish the ignition probability of different materials?

Thanks to the reviewer's suggestion, we determine in detail the dry-to-fresh ratio, ignition point, and calorific value of different combustibles in our paper, and utilize the entropy method to score the fire resistance of combustibles, determine the fire resistance of different materials, and obtain the probability of catching fire. See lines 459 to 487.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the paper and I believe the authors have adequately addressed my previously highlighted concerns. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is appropriate in this version of the paper. 

Author Response

Reviewer: 1

1. Thank you for your efforts. It is a nice study especially since it has combined field data with models to enhance the accuracy of fire risk assessments and pragmatic management suggestions, as well as accounted for other influential factors, like meteorological and topographical conditions.The authors claim that previous models might suffer from data inaccuracy and applicability to other regions, but they did not discuss how their method overcomes these issues which could serve as an additional contribution to their study.

You rightly pointed out that we did not discuss how our method overcomes the issues of data inaccuracy and limited applicability that previous models might suffer from. To address this, we have now included a detailed discussion in the manuscript that outlines how our method enhances data accuracy and applicability. Specifically, we've emphasized the use of local and recent data, the adaptation of models to regional specifics, and the validation of our model with current field data to ensure relevance and accuracy.

2. Considering the simulation and model: The authors should report indicators on the model/simulation behavior to give an idea of how good the model was so its results are stable and reliable, such as error value, robustness check, and sensitivity analysis of the used parameter values.

We appreciate your suggestion to report on indicators of the model's performance. In the revised manuscript, we have included additional details on error values and sensitivity analysis of the parameter values. These indicators should provide a clearer understanding of the model's reliability and stability.

3. Figure 4’s (and 5) title is too long, butter to shorten it and keep the reset and a note under the figures.

We agree that the titles of Figures 4 and 5 were excessively long. In response, we have shortened these titles and included the detailed descriptions as notes under the figures for clarity and brevity.

4. Considering the simulation analysis of surface fire behavior for different types of combustible materials, authors considered multiple factors like spread and intensity, can they consider the nature of the forest understory as fuel on the ground of the forests significantly contributes to the spread and intensity of the fire?

Your suggestion to include the nature of the forest understory as a factor in our modelling analysis is insightful. This was a limitation of our study, and in subsequent studies we have included the effects of the forest understory as a fuel contributor in our analysis of surface fire behaviour.

5. You have two conclusion sections; you might need to rename the first one or merge.

Thank you for pointing out the redundancy in the conclusion sections. We have merged the two sections into one cohesive conclusion, ensuring that it succinctly encapsulates the study's findings and implications.

6. The conclusion should include the limitations of the study and how future research in this field can extend it to conduct new essential and relevant studies.

As suggested, we have included a section in the conclusion that outlines the limitations of our study. Additionally, we propose directions for future research in this field, highlighting areas where our study can be extended to conduct new and relevant investigations.

 

 

Reviewer:2

1. In general the Abstract is categorized into the three sections mentioned but it is not highlighted in the abstract. Kindly remove the section headings – ‘Background’, ‘Methods’ and ‘Results’, and modify the abstract accordingly.

We have removed the section headings – ‘Background’, ‘Methods’, and ‘Results’ – from the abstract and restructured it for a smooth flow and coherence.

2. Lines 50-53: In the statement mentioned here it is not clear which region the statistics are referring to. Please mention the region in the text.

The region referred to in these lines has now been clearly mentioned in the text for better context and clarity.

3. Lines 80-81: Please add references here.

We have added the necessary references in these lines, providing support and context to our statements.

[5]   Cruz, M.G., Gould, J.S., Hollis, J.J, McCaw, W.L. A hierarchical classification of wildland fire fuels for Australian vegetation types. Fire 2018, 1(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire1010013

[6]   Curt, T., Borgniet, L., Bouillon, C., Wildfire frequency varies with the size and shape of fuel types in southeastern France: Implications for environmental management. J. Environ. Manage 2013, 117, 150-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.12.006

[7]   Sandberg, D.V., Riccardi, C.L., Schaaf, M.D., Fire potential rating for wildland fuelbeds using the Fuel Characteristic Classi-fication System. Can. J. For. Res 2007, 37(12), 2456-2463. https://doi.org/10.1139/X07-093

[8]   Fares, S., Bajocco, S., Salvati, L., Camarretta, N., Dupuy, J.L., Xanthopoulos, G., Guijarro, M., Madrigal, J., Hernando, C., Corona, P. Characterizing potential wildland fire fuel in live vegetation in the Mediterranean region. Ann. For. Sci 2017, 74(1), 1-14.

[9]   Palaiologou, P., Kalabokidis, K., Ager, A.A, Day, M.A. Development of comprehensive fuel management strategies for re-ducing wildfire risk in Greece. Forests 2020, 11(8), 789. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11080789

[10] Heisig, J., Olson, E., Pebesma, E. Predicting wildfire fuels and hazard in a central European temperate Forest using active and passive remote sensing. Fire 2022, 5(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire5010029

4. Line 91: Add a reference for ‘FARSITE model’.

[11] Zigner, K., Carvalho, L., Peterson, S., Fujioka, F., Duine, G.J., Jones, C., Roberts, D., Moritz, M. Evaluating the ability of FAR-SITE to simulate wildfires influenced by extreme, downslope winds in Santa Barbara, California. Fire 2020, 3(3), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire3030029

5. Section 2.1.1: Some of the statements have been written in past tense. Kindly correct.

We have corrected the tenses and marked them in blue in the text

6. Table 1 and Table 2 can be combined for better visual representation.

Tables 1 and 2 have been combined for improved visual representation and easier comprehension.

7. Section 2.1.1: This section is not clear at all and there seems to be grammatical inconsistencies as well. Please revise this section completely to clearly describe the Sampling method and all terms associated with it.

We have corrected the tense inconsistencies and revised this section for grammatical accuracy and clarity, especially in describing the sampling method.

8. Line 268: Some details on how the fuel bed thickness was measured would be helpful.

For better understanding, we have indicated how we measured fuel bed thickness during our field investigations.

9. Please remove the subheadings mentioned in the main paragraph of different sections, for example line 276.

We have removed the subheadings from the main paragraphs to enhance readability and flow.

10. Line 276 and 293: Please add reference for ‘entropy weight method’ and ‘information entropy’.

We have added the necessary references in these lines, providing support and context to our statements.

[22] Belcher, C.M., Hudspith, V.A. Changes to Cretaceous surface fire behaviour influenced the spread of the early angiosperms. New Phytol 2017, 213(3), 1521-1532.

11. Figure 4: It is not clear what the difference between figs 4(a) and (b) are besides the template.

Figure 4(c) and (f): What are the terms – ‘Aa’, ‘Bb’ and others in the figures.

The differences between figures 4 (a) and (b) have been clarified. For better understanding, we have also explained the terms "Aa", "Bb" and others in Figures 4(c) and (f), which are mainly ANOVA, analysing significant differences in combustibles within different plots, with capital letters denoting significant differences at the 0.01 level. Upper case letters indicate significant differences at the 0.01 level and lower case letters indicate significant differences at the 0.05 level. Those with different letters represent significant differences between them

12. The term ‘Forest Stands’ is confusing. Please describe its meaning before it is mentioned in the text.

We have provided a clear description of the term ‘Forest Stands’ before its mention in the text to avoid confusion. A forest stand refers to a relatively homogeneous community of trees that are somewhat similar in species, age, size and density. Forest stands are usually the basic unit of forest management and forest ecology studies

13. Lines 533-536: Please add references here and explain how the maximum rate of spread is defined.

The maximum rate of spread of a forest fire is the highest possible rate of spread of a forest fire under certain conditions.

[43] Cruz M G, Alexander M E. The 10% wind speed rule of thumb for estimating a wildfire’s forward rate of spread in forests and shrublands[J]. Annals of Forest Science, 2019, 76(2): 1-11.

14. Lines 540-541: The authors talk about using behaveplus to derive fire spread rate. Please describe in a few statements the requirements, methods, etc. and add relevant references.

We have included a brief description of the requirements and methods used in BehavePlus, along with relevant references.

[27] Andrews, P.L. Current status and future needs of the BehavePlus Fire Modeling System. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2013, 23(1), 21-33. https://doi:10.1071/WF12167.

[28] Glitzenstein, J.S., Streng, D.R., Achtemeier, G.L., Naeher, L.P., Wade, D.D. Fuels and fire behavior in chipped and unchipped plots: implications for land management near the wildland/urban interface. For. Ecol. Manage 2006, 236(1), 18-29. https://doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.06.002.

[29] Ellsworth, L.M., Litton, C.M., Leary, J.J.K. Restoration impacts on fuels and fire potential in a dryland tropical ecosystem dominated by the invasive grass Megathyrsus maximus. Restor. Ecol 2015, 23(6), 955-963. https://doi:10.1111/rec.12263.

[30] Sow, M., Hély, C., Mbow, C., Sambou, B. Fuel and fire behavior analysis for early-season prescribed fire planning in Sudanian and Sahelian savannas. J. Arid Enviro 2013, 89, 84-93.

15. Section 3.2.2: The authors talk about simulation analysis of surface fire behavior in this section. However, the findings presented in this section with respect to wind speed and slope are already well established in other literature. Please discuss the importance of these results in this study and also add some text for comparing the results with previous literature.

We have included a brief description of the requirements and methods used in BehavePlus, along with relevant references.

16. There are 2 sections that talk about Conclusions. Please combine them or separate them into Discussion and Conclusions.

The two sections discussing conclusions have been combined into one cohesive section.

17. Line 695-698: The authors should remove these lines.

These lines have been removed as suggested.

18. In the paper there are some statements which should have references. I have not explicitly listed them all but kindly go through the paper and add references wherever possible.

We have thoroughly reviewed the paper and added references wherever necessary to strengthen our statements and assertions.

19. Comments on the Quality of English Language

The entire manuscript has been carefully reviewed and revised to correct grammatical and structural inconsistencies, particularly in the Methods section. We believe these changes significantly improve the comprehension and overall quality of the paper.

 

 

Reviewer:3

1. a logical flow of ideas, from the big picture of the global wildfire problem to the need to understand forest fuel properties;

We acknowledge that the manuscript initially lacked a coherent flow. In response, we have restructured the manuscript to ensure a logical progression of ideas. The revised manuscript now begins with an overview of the global wildfire problem, then narrows down to the importance of understanding forest fuel properties. This restructuring should provide a clearer context and rationale for the study.

2. a clear description of the study aims or questions or hypotheses following on from the logical flow of ideas, in a way the clearly demonstrates why the traits that have been measured are important to address these aims/questions/hypotheses;

In the revised version, we have explicitly outlined the study aims, questions, and hypotheses right after the introduction. This section now clearly explains why the traits measured are crucial for addressing these aims and hypotheses, establishing a direct link between our objectives and the research conducted.

3. a Results section that presents the findings of the study in relation to the aims etc.;

The Results section has been revised to directly correlate with the study's aims and hypotheses. We have presented our findings in a manner that aligns with the objectives, ensuring that each result is discussed in the context of how it contributes to addressing the study’s aims.

4. a Discussion section that interprets the results and how they all fit together in a clear way in relation to the aims etc.;

The Discussion section has been thoroughly reworked to interpret the results cohesively in relation to the study's aims. We have focused on discussing how the findings integrate with the larger picture of the global wildfire problem and the specific relevance of understanding forest fuel properties.

5. a substantial re-editing of the manuscript to reduce its length and its verbosity. So much of what is written can be tidied up for clarity, to remove unnecessary words, and to use more appropriate scientific language for a manuscript of this nature.

We have conducted a substantial re-editing of the manuscript to reduce its length and verbosity. Unnecessary words and phrases have been removed, and the language has been refined to be more precise and appropriate for a scientific manuscript. This re-editing should enhance the overall readability and clarity of the manuscript.

 

 

Reviewer:4

1. The simulation software about fire spread should be introduced in detial.

We have expanded the section on the simulation software, providing detailed information about its features, operational mechanisms, and relevance to our study. This should offer a comprehensive understanding of how the software contributes to the analysis of fire spread.

2. The simulation results about spread rate and flame height, should to be compared with experimental data or previous results.

The simulation results regarding spread rate and flame height have now been compared with both experimental data and previous research findings. This comparison is included to validate our results and highlight their significance in the context of existing literature.

3. How to establish the ignition probability of different materials? 

Your suggestion to include the nature of understory vegetation as a factor in our modelling analysis was insightful. This was a limitation of our study, and in subsequent studies we have included the effects of understory vegetation as a fuel factor in surface fire behaviour analyses.

4. Why different slope is simulated? Is it the same with Xiuwu?

The reason we simulated different slopes is because according to the topographic data of Xiuwu County, the slopes range from 0-40°, so we simulated slopes within this range, and we provided these simulated slopes to represent the background information of the topographic changes in Xiuwu, thus ensuring that our simulations closely mimic the real conditions in the area.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Assessment:

I believe that this paper has resolved the previous issues after extensive early revisions and is now very suitable for publication in this journal. The paper provides novel insights through a comprehensive analysis of the forest fuel characteristics and wildfire dynamics in Xiuwu County. The use of BehavePlus software methodology has enhanced the innovativeness of the research, and detailed data collection and analysis have improved the study's quality and credibility.

After revisions, the article not only strengthens its core viewpoints and appeal but also provides a deep understanding of fire behavior in different forest types, which is crucial for effective fire management and ecological conservation. The paper focuses on the practical impact of fire risk management and has raised public awareness of forest fires, making a significant contribution to research and practice in the field.

 

In summary, this paper is not only closely related to the theme of the FIRE journal but also of high reference value to academic researchers and practitioners in the field of forest fire management. Therefore, I strongly recommend its publication in the FIRE journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language：Overall quality of English writing in the thesis is good

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer: 1

1. Thank you for your efforts. It is a nice study especially since it has combined field data with models to enhance the accuracy of fire risk assessments and pragmatic management suggestions, as well as accounted for other influential factors, like meteorological and topographical conditions.The authors claim that previous models might suffer from data inaccuracy and applicability to other regions, but they did not discuss how their method overcomes these issues which could serve as an additional contribution to their study.

You rightly pointed out that we did not discuss how our method overcomes the issues of data inaccuracy and limited applicability that previous models might suffer from. To address this, we have now included a detailed discussion in the manuscript that outlines how our method enhances data accuracy and applicability. Specifically, we've emphasized the use of local and recent data, the adaptation of models to regional specifics, and the validation of our model with current field data to ensure relevance and accuracy.

2. Considering the simulation and model: The authors should report indicators on the model/simulation behavior to give an idea of how good the model was so its results are stable and reliable, such as error value, robustness check, and sensitivity analysis of the used parameter values.

We appreciate your suggestion to report on indicators of the model's performance. In the revised manuscript, we have included additional details on error values and sensitivity analysis of the parameter values. These indicators should provide a clearer understanding of the model's reliability and stability.

3. Figure 4’s (and 5) title is too long, butter to shorten it and keep the reset and a note under the figures.

We agree that the titles of Figures 4 and 5 were excessively long. In response, we have shortened these titles and included the detailed descriptions as notes under the figures for clarity and brevity.

4. Considering the simulation analysis of surface fire behavior for different types of combustible materials, authors considered multiple factors like spread and intensity, can they consider the nature of the forest understory as fuel on the ground of the forests significantly contributes to the spread and intensity of the fire?

Your suggestion to include the nature of the forest understory as a factor in our modelling analysis is insightful. This was a limitation of our study, and in subsequent studies we have included the effects of the forest understory as a fuel contributor in our analysis of surface fire behaviour.

5. You have two conclusion sections; you might need to rename the first one or merge.

Thank you for pointing out the redundancy in the conclusion sections. We have merged the two sections into one cohesive conclusion, ensuring that it succinctly encapsulates the study's findings and implications.

6. The conclusion should include the limitations of the study and how future research in this field can extend it to conduct new essential and relevant studies.

As suggested, we have included a section in the conclusion that outlines the limitations of our study. Additionally, we propose directions for future research in this field, highlighting areas where our study can be extended to conduct new and relevant investigations.

 

 

Reviewer:2

1. In general the Abstract is categorized into the three sections mentioned but it is not highlighted in the abstract. Kindly remove the section headings – ‘Background’, ‘Methods’ and ‘Results’, and modify the abstract accordingly.

We have removed the section headings – ‘Background’, ‘Methods’, and ‘Results’ – from the abstract and restructured it for a smooth flow and coherence.

2. Lines 50-53: In the statement mentioned here it is not clear which region the statistics are referring to. Please mention the region in the text.

The region referred to in these lines has now been clearly mentioned in the text for better context and clarity.

3. Lines 80-81: Please add references here.

We have added the necessary references in these lines, providing support and context to our statements.

[5]   Cruz, M.G., Gould, J.S., Hollis, J.J, McCaw, W.L. A hierarchical classification of wildland fire fuels for Australian vegetation types. Fire 2018, 1(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire1010013

[6]   Curt, T., Borgniet, L., Bouillon, C., Wildfire frequency varies with the size and shape of fuel types in southeastern France: Implications for environmental management. J. Environ. Manage 2013, 117, 150-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.12.006

[7]   Sandberg, D.V., Riccardi, C.L., Schaaf, M.D., Fire potential rating for wildland fuelbeds using the Fuel Characteristic Classi-fication System. Can. J. For. Res 2007, 37(12), 2456-2463. https://doi.org/10.1139/X07-093

[8]   Fares, S., Bajocco, S., Salvati, L., Camarretta, N., Dupuy, J.L., Xanthopoulos, G., Guijarro, M., Madrigal, J., Hernando, C., Corona, P. Characterizing potential wildland fire fuel in live vegetation in the Mediterranean region. Ann. For. Sci 2017, 74(1), 1-14.

[9]   Palaiologou, P., Kalabokidis, K., Ager, A.A, Day, M.A. Development of comprehensive fuel management strategies for re-ducing wildfire risk in Greece. Forests 2020, 11(8), 789. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11080789

[10] Heisig, J., Olson, E., Pebesma, E. Predicting wildfire fuels and hazard in a central European temperate Forest using active and passive remote sensing. Fire 2022, 5(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire5010029

4. Line 91: Add a reference for ‘FARSITE model’.

[11] Zigner, K., Carvalho, L., Peterson, S., Fujioka, F., Duine, G.J., Jones, C., Roberts, D., Moritz, M. Evaluating the ability of FAR-SITE to simulate wildfires influenced by extreme, downslope winds in Santa Barbara, California. Fire 2020, 3(3), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire3030029

5. Section 2.1.1: Some of the statements have been written in past tense. Kindly correct.

We have corrected the tenses and marked them in blue in the text

6. Table 1 and Table 2 can be combined for better visual representation.

Tables 1 and 2 have been combined for improved visual representation and easier comprehension.

7. Section 2.1.1: This section is not clear at all and there seems to be grammatical inconsistencies as well. Please revise this section completely to clearly describe the Sampling method and all terms associated with it.

We have corrected the tense inconsistencies and revised this section for grammatical accuracy and clarity, especially in describing the sampling method.

8. Line 268: Some details on how the fuel bed thickness was measured would be helpful.

For better understanding, we have indicated how we measured fuel bed thickness during our field investigations.

9. Please remove the subheadings mentioned in the main paragraph of different sections, for example line 276.

We have removed the subheadings from the main paragraphs to enhance readability and flow.

10. Line 276 and 293: Please add reference for ‘entropy weight method’ and ‘information entropy’.

We have added the necessary references in these lines, providing support and context to our statements.

[22] Belcher, C.M., Hudspith, V.A. Changes to Cretaceous surface fire behaviour influenced the spread of the early angiosperms. New Phytol 2017, 213(3), 1521-1532.

11. Figure 4: It is not clear what the difference between figs 4(a) and (b) are besides the template.

Figure 4(c) and (f): What are the terms – ‘Aa’, ‘Bb’ and others in the figures.

The differences between figures 4 (a) and (b) have been clarified. For better understanding, we have also explained the terms "Aa", "Bb" and others in Figures 4(c) and (f), which are mainly ANOVA, analysing significant differences in combustibles within different plots, with capital letters denoting significant differences at the 0.01 level. Upper case letters indicate significant differences at the 0.01 level and lower case letters indicate significant differences at the 0.05 level. Those with different letters represent significant differences between them

12. The term ‘Forest Stands’ is confusing. Please describe its meaning before it is mentioned in the text.

We have provided a clear description of the term ‘Forest Stands’ before its mention in the text to avoid confusion. A forest stand refers to a relatively homogeneous community of trees that are somewhat similar in species, age, size and density. Forest stands are usually the basic unit of forest management and forest ecology studies

13. Lines 533-536: Please add references here and explain how the maximum rate of spread is defined.

The maximum rate of spread of a forest fire is the highest possible rate of spread of a forest fire under certain conditions.

[43] Cruz M G, Alexander M E. The 10% wind speed rule of thumb for estimating a wildfire’s forward rate of spread in forests and shrublands[J]. Annals of Forest Science, 2019, 76(2): 1-11.

14. Lines 540-541: The authors talk about using behaveplus to derive fire spread rate. Please describe in a few statements the requirements, methods, etc. and add relevant references.

We have included a brief description of the requirements and methods used in BehavePlus, along with relevant references.

[27] Andrews, P.L. Current status and future needs of the BehavePlus Fire Modeling System. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2013, 23(1), 21-33. https://doi:10.1071/WF12167.

[28] Glitzenstein, J.S., Streng, D.R., Achtemeier, G.L., Naeher, L.P., Wade, D.D. Fuels and fire behavior in chipped and unchipped plots: implications for land management near the wildland/urban interface. For. Ecol. Manage 2006, 236(1), 18-29. https://doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.06.002.

[29] Ellsworth, L.M., Litton, C.M., Leary, J.J.K. Restoration impacts on fuels and fire potential in a dryland tropical ecosystem dominated by the invasive grass Megathyrsus maximus. Restor. Ecol 2015, 23(6), 955-963. https://doi:10.1111/rec.12263.

[30] Sow, M., Hély, C., Mbow, C., Sambou, B. Fuel and fire behavior analysis for early-season prescribed fire planning in Sudanian and Sahelian savannas. J. Arid Enviro 2013, 89, 84-93.

15. Section 3.2.2: The authors talk about simulation analysis of surface fire behavior in this section. However, the findings presented in this section with respect to wind speed and slope are already well established in other literature. Please discuss the importance of these results in this study and also add some text for comparing the results with previous literature.

We have included a brief description of the requirements and methods used in BehavePlus, along with relevant references.

16. There are 2 sections that talk about Conclusions. Please combine them or separate them into Discussion and Conclusions.

The two sections discussing conclusions have been combined into one cohesive section.

17. Line 695-698: The authors should remove these lines.

These lines have been removed as suggested.

18. In the paper there are some statements which should have references. I have not explicitly listed them all but kindly go through the paper and add references wherever possible.

We have thoroughly reviewed the paper and added references wherever necessary to strengthen our statements and assertions.

19. Comments on the Quality of English Language

The entire manuscript has been carefully reviewed and revised to correct grammatical and structural inconsistencies, particularly in the Methods section. We believe these changes significantly improve the comprehension and overall quality of the paper.

 

 

Reviewer:3

1. a logical flow of ideas, from the big picture of the global wildfire problem to the need to understand forest fuel properties;

We acknowledge that the manuscript initially lacked a coherent flow. In response, we have restructured the manuscript to ensure a logical progression of ideas. The revised manuscript now begins with an overview of the global wildfire problem, then narrows down to the importance of understanding forest fuel properties. This restructuring should provide a clearer context and rationale for the study.

2. a clear description of the study aims or questions or hypotheses following on from the logical flow of ideas, in a way the clearly demonstrates why the traits that have been measured are important to address these aims/questions/hypotheses;

In the revised version, we have explicitly outlined the study aims, questions, and hypotheses right after the introduction. This section now clearly explains why the traits measured are crucial for addressing these aims and hypotheses, establishing a direct link between our objectives and the research conducted.

3. a Results section that presents the findings of the study in relation to the aims etc.;

The Results section has been revised to directly correlate with the study's aims and hypotheses. We have presented our findings in a manner that aligns with the objectives, ensuring that each result is discussed in the context of how it contributes to addressing the study’s aims.

4. a Discussion section that interprets the results and how they all fit together in a clear way in relation to the aims etc.;

The Discussion section has been thoroughly reworked to interpret the results cohesively in relation to the study's aims. We have focused on discussing how the findings integrate with the larger picture of the global wildfire problem and the specific relevance of understanding forest fuel properties.

5. a substantial re-editing of the manuscript to reduce its length and its verbosity. So much of what is written can be tidied up for clarity, to remove unnecessary words, and to use more appropriate scientific language for a manuscript of this nature.

We have conducted a substantial re-editing of the manuscript to reduce its length and verbosity. Unnecessary words and phrases have been removed, and the language has been refined to be more precise and appropriate for a scientific manuscript. This re-editing should enhance the overall readability and clarity of the manuscript.

 

 

Reviewer:4

1. The simulation software about fire spread should be introduced in detial.

We have expanded the section on the simulation software, providing detailed information about its features, operational mechanisms, and relevance to our study. This should offer a comprehensive understanding of how the software contributes to the analysis of fire spread.

2. The simulation results about spread rate and flame height, should to be compared with experimental data or previous results.

The simulation results regarding spread rate and flame height have now been compared with both experimental data and previous research findings. This comparison is included to validate our results and highlight their significance in the context of existing literature.

3. How to establish the ignition probability of different materials? 

Your suggestion to include the nature of understory vegetation as a factor in our modelling analysis was insightful. This was a limitation of our study, and in subsequent studies we have included the effects of understory vegetation as a fuel factor in surface fire behaviour analyses.

4. Why different slope is simulated? Is it the same with Xiuwu?

The reason we simulated different slopes is because according to the topographic data of Xiuwu County, the slopes range from 0-40°, so we simulated slopes within this range, and we provided these simulated slopes to represent the background information of the topographic changes in Xiuwu, thus ensuring that our simulations closely mimic the real conditions in the area.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your efforts. It is a nice study especially since it has combined field data with models to enhance the accuracy of fire risk assessments and pragmatic management suggestions, as well as accounted for other influential factors, like meteorological and topographical conditions.

The authors claim that previous models might suffer from data inaccuracy and applicability to other regions, but they did not discuss how their method overcomes these issues which could serve as an additional contribution to their study.

Considering the simulation and model: The authors should report indicators on the model/simulation behavior to give an idea of how good the model was so its results are stable and reliable, such as error value, robustness check, and sensitivity analysis of the used parameter values.

Figure 4’s (and 5) title is too long, butter to shorten it and keep the reset and a note under the figures.

Considering the simulation analysis of surface fire behavior for different types of combustible materials, authors considered multiple factors like spread and intensity, can they consider the nature of the forest understory as fuel on the ground of the forests significantly contributes to the spread and intensity of the fire?

You have two conclusion sections; you might need to rename the first one or merge.

The conclusion should include the limitations of the study and how future research in this field can extend it to conduct new essential and relevant studies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I think authors should use a more straightforward way of explanation. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

General Comment: In this study, the authors have conducted investigations on determining the fuel properties in the wildlands of Xiuwu in China. Given the increase in wildfire incidents across the world it is necessary to quantify the ecological resilience of high vulnerability regions. One of the main concerns with wildfire research is the lack of extensive data so studies like these are necessary going forward for the field of wildfire science. The topic of research is relevant and a good fit for the journal, however, some corrections are required before the paper can be accepted for publication. Please see Specific Comments below:

 

Specific Comments:

·       In general the Abstract is categorized into the three sections mentioned but it is not highlighted in the abstract. Kindly remove the section headings – ‘Background’, ‘Methods’ and ‘Results’, and modify the abstract accordingly.

·   Lines 50-53: In the statement mentioned here it is not clear which region the statistics are referring to. Please mention the region in the text.

·       Lines 80-81: Please add references here.

·       Line 91: Add a reference for ‘FARSITE model’.

·       Section 2.1.1: Some of the statements have been written in past tense. Kindly correct.

·       Table 1 and Table 2 can be combined for better visual representation.

·       Section 2.1.1: This section is not clear at all and there seems to be grammatical inconsistencies as well. Please revise this section completely to clearly describe the Sampling method and all terms associated with it.

·       Line 268: Some details on how the fuel bed thickness was measured would be helpful.

·       Please remove the subheadings mentioned in the main paragraph of different sections, for example line 276.

·       Line 276 and 293: Please add reference for ‘entropy weight method’ and ‘information entropy’.

·       Figure 4: It is not clear what the difference between figs 4(a) and (b) are besides the template.

·       Figure 4(c) and (f): What are the terms – ‘Aa’, ‘Bb’ and others in the figures.

·       The term ‘Forest Stands’ is confusing. Please describe its meaning before it is mentioned in the text.

·       Lines 533-536: Please add references here and explain how the maximum rate of spread is defined.

·       Lines 540-541: The authors talk about using behaveplus to derive fire spread rate. Please describe in a few statements the requirements, methods, etc. and add relevant references.

·       Section 3.2.2: The authors talk about simulation analysis of surface fire behavior in this section. However, the findings presented in this section with respect to wind speed and slope are already well established in other literature. Please discuss the importance of these results in this study and also add some text for comparing the results with previous literature.

·       There are 2 sections that talk about Conclusions. Please combine them or separate them into Discussion and Conclusions.

·       Line 695-698: The authors should remove these lines.

·       In the paper there are some statements which should have references. I have not explicitly listed them all but kindly go through the paper and add references wherever possible.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall quality of English writing in the paper is good, but there are some grammatical and structural inconsistencies, particularly in the Methods section. Some statements are not properly structured resulting in loss of comprehension. Some errors are pointed out in the Specific comments. Please review the paper thoroughly and revise the writing wherever needed.  

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript at present is too long and lacks structure and clarity. With significant reworking, there may be an interesting manuscript for Fire, but it is unfortunately difficult to determine this, based on the way that the current manuscript is written. As it stands, the manuscript is not acceptable for publication. 

I recommend that the authors rewrite the manuscript so that there is: (1) a logical flow of ideas, from the big picture of the global wildfire problem to the need to understand forest fuel properties; (2) a clear description of the study aims or questions or hypotheses following on from the logical flow of ideas, in a way the clearly demonstrates why the traits that have been measured are important to address these aims/questions/hypotheses; (3) a Results section that presents the findings of the study in relation to the aims etc.; (4) a Discussion section that interprets the results and how they all fit together in a clear way in relation to the aims etc.; and (4) a substantial re-editing of the manuscript to reduce its length and its verbosity. So much of what is written can be tidied up for clarity, to remove unnecessary words, and to use more appropriate scientific language for a manuscript of this nature.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See point 4 in my review about the verbosity and lack of clarity in the writing. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper studied the forest fuel properties and potential wildfire dynamics in Xiuwu. In total, the paper is more inclined to statistic analysis. There are some comments to be considered.

1. The simulation software about fire spread should be introduced in detial.

2. The simulation results about spread rate and flame height, should to be compared with experimental data or previous results.

3. How to establish the ignition probability of different materials? 

4. Why different slope is simulated? Is it the same with Xiuwu?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good