Incorporating observed fire severity in refined emissions estimates for boreal and temperate forest fires in the carbon budget model CBM-CFS3 v1.2
Abstract. Among the many natural disturbances that affect Canada's boreal and temperate forest biomes, wildfire has the greatest impact on forest productivity, landscape structure, timber supply and greenhouse gas emissions. Fire severity represents the fate of biomass, partitioning survival, consumption, and mortality without consumption. Currently, the impact of fire on carbon stocks is limited to a single parametrization of fire severity that assumes only high severity fires, despite evidence of widespread mixed-severity fires. This paper describes a sub-model, termed FireDMs (Fire Disturbance Matrix: severity), of the National Forest Carbon Monitoring Accounting and Reporting System for Canada (NFCMARS). In this sub-model, field measurements of biomass consumption are related to satellite-derived burn severity maps and are interpreted from a fire physics and ecology perspective to derive estimates of the forest greenhouse gas emissions in the immediate aftermath of fires. The sub-model also quantifies fire-killed but uncombusted biomass as a set of distinct pools. Model outputs indicate total direct carbon emissions range from a 11 t C/ha in Boreal Shield West forests of Saskatchewan following low severity fire to over 60 t C/ha in Pacific Maritime forests of British Columbia under high severity fire. The existing approach to emissions in NFC-MARS yields regional CO2e emissions that are 10 to 25 percent higher than this new method, owing to lower overall canopy consumption with mixed-severity fires, which is only partially offset by increased estimates of forest floor consumption in this new approach. Comparisons against directly observed fire plume emissions ratios as well as against annualized carbon emissions for Canada's 2023 fire season show good model agreement with observations.
The work and presentation of the work is very good. The manuscript could be published as-is. I Have a few minor suggestions that may help the reader:
1- Line 84-86: This is a vey important sentence , however, it is a bit hard to follow. What is meant by "we outline the evidence-based fire DM" Do you mean that you are defining a new fire DM or new aspect to the fire DM? I think it is just a wording problem. It needs clarification or re-phrasing.
2- Table 2: Where are these EF's from? Cite the source in the caption.
3- Sec 2.1.5: Line 153: This section should start with a very short, cited explanation of how severity it mapped from remote sensing. The opening sentence assumes readers are well-versed in this. All it needs is an opening sentence.Â
4- Sec 2.1.5: Too much review of CBI is included, and then CBI is not used. I think the section can simply mention CBI, rather than defending why it was not used. Instead simply state the work uses plot-level metrics grounded in standard field data collection protocols by strata.
5- Sec 2.1.5, Line 177: The most important sentence of the section is this last sentence. Maybe it should be brought to the top?
6- Line 276: Weather-driven fuel moisture is used in many approaches; it may be good to cite this. You could cite CanFire here and the Consume model. GFED also uses weather metrics, although not as explicitly for duff moisture.
The analysis and discussion is excellent. I have no suggestions here. Nice work!