- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 2 On “Modeling wind fields and fire propagation following bark beetle outbreaks in spatially-heterogeneous pinyon-juniper woodland fuel complexes”
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 201S (2015) 517
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer review report
Peer review report 2 On “Modeling wind fields and fire propagation following bark beetle outbreaks in spatially-heterogeneous pinyon-juniper woodland fuel complexes”
Original Submission Recommendation Major Revision Comments to Author In this research study, the authors use a high-resolution model to assess change in fire behavior associated with bark beetle driven tree mortality. More specifically, they assessed conditions for live trees, dead trees with needles present, and dead trees with needles dropped, all under lower and higher wind conditions. These results are extremely useful and provide important insights about differences in fire behavior responses that are becoming increasingly important to understand as bark beetle driven mortality impacts are increasing across the western US and elsewhere. Rarely have such high-resolution models been applied to wildfire management issues and the authors are to be commended on their work. Technically, the work appears to be sound and builds on the extensive related modeling experience of the team. I think the work is a substantial contribution that the research community will be interested in. Nonetheless, in its current form, I have two major concerns. 1. The authors note that the model simulations show what was expected and should help in refining future hypotheses and understanding, but basically leave it to the reader to assess what the more specific implications of the work are. While it is important that the results are consistent with expected behavior, and the results are described in detail, I think the authors are not effectively discussing their results in a more specific context. What are some of the insights or refined hypotheses that emerge from the work? How should managers think about these results in terms of different fire conditions? 2. While I appreciate the authors’ thoroughness, this manuscript is incredibly lengthy and reads more like an internal report where space was not constrained rather than a journal article where space constraints are critical. For example, we do not reach the Results until page 22. The authors use lengthy phrases describing the Tables and Figures (e.g., “Variables A and B are illustrated in
Figure X), rather than directly indicating the most important findings. Much of the Results are valuable but I frequently found details were overwhelming my ability to readily grasp the most important points. The Background section, while interesting and useful, really impacts the flow of the paper; perhaps after extracting a few key points from it, the rest should be supplemental material. Several of the Tables would be more effective as histograms. The Conclusions is redundant without building to a more general useful insight than the model predicted responses similar to expected (point 1 above). I believe the paper could readily cut by 1/3 in length without loss of critical content in a way that would greatly increase readability. Other comments l. 64. It may be useful to highlight that increased drought frequency and warmer climate conditions projected for climate change suggest this problem may increase in the future. l. 80. Early conceptual models of this type of fire behavior are presented in Allen (2007) and Bentz et al. (2009). l. 94. It would be very helpful to be more specific about the objectives here, so as to provide a roadmap for upcoming results. l. 149. Wolfe and Nickling (1993) is another relevant reference for wind in heterogeneously vegetated systems. l. 212. Some references here would seem appropriate. l. 230. Please state what type of canopy cover these are for so we can relate it to the proposed work. l. 252, l. 373. Stimson et al. (2005) report foliar water % values for live and dead trees. l. 566. It would be helpful to list the simulation run next to each panel. Allen, C. D. 2007. Ecosystems 10: 797-808. Bentz, B., et al. 2009. Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North America: Causes and Consequences. Univ. of Utah Press. ISBN 9780-87480965-7. 42 p. Stimson, H. C., et al. 2005. Remote Sensing of Environment 96: 108-118. Wolfe, S. A., and W. G. Nickling. 1993. Progress in Physical Geography 17, 50-68. Anonymous Available online 6 August 2015
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.11.007. 0168-1923/$ – see front matter http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.07.153
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer review report
Peer review report 2 On “Modeling wind fields and fire propagation following bark beetle outbreaks in spatially-heterogeneous pinyon-juniper woodland fuel complexes”
Original Submission Recommendation Major Revision Comments to Author In this research study, the authors use a high-resolution model to assess change in fire behavior associated with bark beetle driven tree mortality. More specifically, they assessed conditions for live trees, dead trees with needles present, and dead trees with needles dropped, all under lower and higher wind conditions. These results are extremely useful and provide important insights about differences in fire behavior responses that are becoming increasingly important to understand as bark beetle driven mortality impacts are increasing across the western US and elsewhere. Rarely have such high-resolution models been applied to wildfire management issues and the authors are to be commended on their work. Technically, the work appears to be sound and builds on the extensive related modeling experience of the team. I think the work is a substantial contribution that the research community will be interested in. Nonetheless, in its current form, I have two major concerns. 1. The authors note that the model simulations show what was expected and should help in refining future hypotheses and understanding, but basically leave it to the reader to assess what the more specific implications of the work are. While it is important that the results are consistent with expected behavior, and the results are described in detail, I think the authors are not effectively discussing their results in a more specific context. What are some of the insights or refined hypotheses that emerge from the work? How should managers think about these results in terms of different fire conditions? 2. While I appreciate the authors’ thoroughness, this manuscript is incredibly lengthy and reads more like an internal report where space was not constrained rather than a journal article where space constraints are critical. For example, we do not reach the Results until page 22. The authors use lengthy phrases describing the Tables and Figures (e.g., “Variables A and B are illustrated in
Figure X), rather than directly indicating the most important findings. Much of the Results are valuable but I frequently found details were overwhelming my ability to readily grasp the most important points. The Background section, while interesting and useful, really impacts the flow of the paper; perhaps after extracting a few key points from it, the rest should be supplemental material. Several of the Tables would be more effective as histograms. The Conclusions is redundant without building to a more general useful insight than the model predicted responses similar to expected (point 1 above). I believe the paper could readily cut by 1/3 in length without loss of critical content in a way that would greatly increase readability. Other comments l. 64. It may be useful to highlight that increased drought frequency and warmer climate conditions projected for climate change suggest this problem may increase in the future. l. 80. Early conceptual models of this type of fire behavior are presented in Allen (2007) and Bentz et al. (2009). l. 94. It would be very helpful to be more specific about the objectives here, so as to provide a roadmap for upcoming results. l. 149. Wolfe and Nickling (1993) is another relevant reference for wind in heterogeneously vegetated systems. l. 212. Some references here would seem appropriate. l. 230. Please state what type of canopy cover these are for so we can relate it to the proposed work. l. 252, l. 373. Stimson et al. (2005) report foliar water % values for live and dead trees. l. 566. It would be helpful to list the simulation run next to each panel. Allen, C. D. 2007. Ecosystems 10: 797-808. Bentz, B., et al. 2009. Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North America: Causes and Consequences. Univ. of Utah Press. ISBN 9780-87480965-7. 42 p. Stimson, H. C., et al. 2005. Remote Sensing of Environment 96: 108-118. Wolfe, S. A., and W. G. Nickling. 1993. Progress in Physical Geography 17, 50-68. Anonymous Available online 6 August 2015
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.11.007. 0168-1923/$ – see front matter http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.07.153