Satellite Observational Evidence of Contrasting Changes in Northern Eurasian Wildfires from 2003 to 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents an analysis of temporal and spatial changes in wildfires in northern Eurasia (NEA) covered the period from 2003 to 2020. The analysis was made using the reconstructed active fire product Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS). The authors found that fires in the NEA showed a relationship with environmental conditions ( in different latitudinal zones) and land use. The paper is more in the nature of a scientific communication than a research paper. The results obtained are general and often unverifiable. Whether it is a fire related to human factor or natural. Such analysis on a and such a large area is not always reliable.

Regardless, it depicts the temporal variability of fire occurrence in this climate zone, and this is a positive side of this study. Bellow are detailed comments:

Deatailed comments:

The title of the paper does not sound scientific; I suggest changing it to registered instead of observed. 

In the abstract, highlight the objectives of the work, as they are not clear. At the end of the abstract in 2 sentences write about the results in a clear way. 

Avoid repeating title words in keywords. 

In the Introduction please supplement with works on satellite analysis, which has been done so far. Many of the works cited are about the impact of fire on boreal ecosystems, and that is not the purpose of this work. 

Line 65-69: please separate work objectives from results.

In the Materials and Methods chapter, create a Study area section and there describe what area the study area covered. Otherwise, for many readers it is not understandable.

In fig 2e it is better to name them in terms of biogeorphic names like Boreal forest, steppe ecosystems, tundra.....or other. Grasses does not mean anything. This is the bad land use map. 

The legend in fig 3 also needs to be corrected. What is meant by grass, shrub forest. At the very least, grass and shrub ecosystems should be added.

The results of the work fairly well presented in contrast to the discussion chapter and conclusion.

The discussion needs to be expanded to explain the reasons for the diversity and seasonality of fire in the area.

Some of the elements found in Conclusion can be transferred to the discussion.

The Conclusion is to be shortened and the findings given in bullet points.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Observed contrasting changes in Northern Eurasian wildfires from 2003 to 2020

Dear Authors

The basic science of this paper is conducted in a good way and is of an appropriate standard.  The author and his team write this paper according to journal scope and modern trends. I am glad to review this paper because the paper is very interested according to my research interest area.

The authors used MODIS active fire data to determine the spatiotemporal changes in wildfires over Northern Eurasia (NEA) from 2003 to 2020. In this manuscript, I found very long sentences and some grammar mistakes. The author should revise the whole manuscript and fix some grammar mistakes and split long sentences. No need to use many and in one sentence. All figures are according to journal criteria. Moreover, the paper is well-structured. I am going to recommend minor revision at this stage. I hope, the author will follow our comments and enhance their study and resubmit again in this journal.

Best Regards

Title

•I am not satisfied with the title of this study

Abstract

•Abstract is well structured and explains the whole study in this manuscript.

Line 9-10, Revise this sentence.

 

Introduction

Line 65-70: Revise these paragraphs. Objectives are not clear. Define how to analyze MODIS data from 2003-2010.

The objective should be clear according to the whole study

 

2. Material and Methods

·         Add Study area with details,

·         Why did the authors choose this study area

·         Also add study area figures.

·         Add reasons for wildfire

·          

 

3. Results

Use Figure in the main text instead of Fig.

I hope the authors will improve this study and resubmit it again in this journal.

Best Regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All my comments and suggestions were done. I am very satisfied.