the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Estimating future wildfire burnt area over Greece using the JULES-INFERNO model
Abstract. Our previous studies have shown that fire weather conditions in the Mediterranean and specifically over Greece are expected to become more severe with climate change, impling potential increases in burnt area. Here, we employ the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES) coupled with the INFERNO fire model driven by future climate projections from the UKESM1 model to investigate the repercussions of climate change and future vegetation changes on burnt area over Greece. We validate modelled burnt area against the satellite-derived GFED5 dataset, and find the model’s performance to be good, especially for the more fire-prone parts of the country in the south Greece. For future simulations, we use future climate data following three Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), consisting of an optimistic climate change scenario where fossil fuel emissions peak and decline beyond 2020 (SSP126), a middle-of-the-road scenario (SSP370), and a pessimistic scenario where emissions continue to rise throughout the century (SSP8.5). Our results show increased burnt area in the future compared to the present-day period in response to overall hotter and drier climatological conditions. We use an additional JULES-INFERNO simulation in which dynamic vegetation was activated, and find that it features smaller future burned area increases compared to our simulation with static present-day vegetation. For this dynamically changing vegetation simulation the greatest burnt area increases are found for southern Greece, due to higher future availability of flammable and heat-resistant needleleaf trees and the smallest decreases in agricultural areas of northern Greece due to a reduction in the aforementioned tree category.
- Preprint
(2282 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-274', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 May 2025
Dear Editor,
It is an intersting topic however I beilive that the manuscript needs further development for becoming accepted. My comments for the authors are the following:
1. They extensively use acronyms which makes the flow of the reading quite difficult.
2. In the Introduction, the way it is wriiten I think the readers need extensive prior knowledge of the topic, so that they are able to follow the text. I think the authors need to provide more explanations and text relevant to what they are doing.
3. In the section 2 the authors have written everything, the data, the methods the background of their model. I think it should be split to the corresponding sections (background, data, methods) and developed more.
4. My biggest concern is the performane of their model, as this is presented and discussed in figure 1d. I find that this model completely misses the fires occured especially in the year 2007, 2011 and also the 2019 where there are no fires. What is the correlation between the observed and estimated? The authors support that their model does not consider ignition sourses. Then, maybe they need to change even the title of their work and try to estimate maybe the conditions (meteorological) suitable for having fires.
5. Also, I suggest the auhtors to evaluate spatially the estimated vs the observed fire activity. Where in space toberve th fires and compare this to their estimates from the model.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-274-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-274', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 May 2025
GENERAL COMMENT
The manuscript entitled “Estimating future wildfire burnt area over Greece using the JULES-INFERNO model” aims to analyse the potential impacts of future climate change and vegetation changes on area burned over Greece. The authors applied the JULES simulator (Joint UK Land Environment Simulator) coupled with the INFERNO fire model, and used future climate projections from the UKESM1 model as input data.
The work presents a set of limitations and critical aspects that need to be addressed by the authors. In the Specific Comments, a list of points that should be verified, clarified or improved is provided
I recommend major revisions of the manuscript before publication.SPECIFIC COMMENTS
L25-64: The Introduction would benefit from a better review of the most relevant literature in the topics under investigation, for instance increasing the number of references to appropriate and more recent studies.
L33 (and in other parts of the manuscript): please replace “oC” with “°C”. This is also valid for “o” (degrees), which should also be amended.
L37 (and elsewhere): please amend the references.
L44-49: These sentences need to be improved and possibly should include references to more recent studies when necessary. For instance, the fact that “Landscape fragmentation is projected to increase in the Mediterranean region” is valid for some Mediterranean areas, while other areas could face opposite patterns in future years (and are facing opposite patterns in current years). In the Salis et al work, the unmanaged vegetation overgrowth is related to agricultural land abandonment rather than to fire suppression. Again, the projected agricultural expansion due to improved technology balancing the effects of climate change should be better contextualized.
L65-125: The methodological part needs to be better organized, as the presence of a single Section (“Data and JULES model setup”) is not satisfactory. The methods did not describe the approach used to obtain data and findings presented in the Results Section, or how wildfire size was derived. The use of FWI is not mentioned in this section. Considering that the authors are emphasizing the potential effects of future conditions on wildfire size in Greece, describing how future wildfire size was estimated is crucial. In addition, I would recommend including a figure that summarizes the methodological approach adopted.
L69-71: Wind speed is a key driver for the occurrence of large wildfires and strongly influences wildfire regime. If the model does not consider this input, this is a significant limitation that should be mentioned in the paper.
L74: Please clarify if the fuel load index only refers to surface fuels, or if canopy fuels are also included. Moreover, how were the biomass data estimated (sources of data?)?
L87-88: The plant functional types (PFTs) should be better described. More specifically, please clarify how many categories were used for the study area, and provide a PFT map.
L91-92: Do you mean that the number of simulated fire ignitions is constant for current and future scenarios? This contrasts with previous works that indicate a potential lengthening of the fire season (see L31-34) and an inherent increase in future fire occurrences. Please clarify.
L96: “Our simulation domain covers the entire globe”. Is this correct?
L96-113: there are many acronyms, and this does not help reading this part of the paper.
L132: “from the obsclim climate experiment”. Please be more precise.
L147: “increased fire weather”. This should be amended
L150-154: please define, in both the legend and the caption, the unit of measure of Figures a, b, and c. Please also clarify if you are referring to decadal, annual, or monthly area burned values.
L162-167: Again, it is not clear if the area burned refer to decadal or annual values.
L189-191 & L193-195: The units of measure should be checked and clarified when necessary. The temporal scale of the units (e.g.: monthly, decadal, annual averages?) should be defined.
L198: “To better understand the changes in burnt area, we estimated changes for different sizes of fires”. How? Using the model or FWI outputs? This should be defined in the Methods.
L271-275: The use of different climate change scenarios in the work needs to be justified. In more detail, the authors proposed RCP2.6, RCP7.0 and RCP8.5 for the analysis of static vs. dynamic vegetation models. The FWI analysis considered RCP2.6, RCP4.5, and RCP8.5. The wildfire size analysis was based on SSP126, SSP370, and SSP585 scenarios. Why? This is a key point that needs to be addressed, as the climate data are different but combined in the Results without any critical consideration.
Results: the work is missing the discussion of the results and findings in the light of previous similar studies, as well as the discussion of the significance of the different results presented. I recommend including a “Discussion” section, or improving to Results by discussing the results in relation to those of others.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-274-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
139 | 54 | 13 | 206 | 14 | 12 |
- HTML: 139
- PDF: 54
- XML: 13
- Total: 206
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1