the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 08 Apr 2026
Forecasting the Flame: Simulating Future Wildfire Regimes in the Northeast Mediterranean
Abstract. Despite a global decline in total burned area, high-impact wildfire events continue to pose growing threats to ecosystems and human communities. As climate change amplifies hydroclimatic extremes, cycles of precipitation-driven fuel build-up followed by persistent drought are increasing the likelihood of severe wildfires. Moving beyond estimates of total burned area, this study aims to answer "where, and how often, will future landscapes burn?" by quantifying wildfire hazard through fire probability and fire return intervals for the northern segment of the Eastern Mediterranean Basin (34–46° N, 24–50° E), a region where such extremes are expected to fundamentally alter fire regimes. Potential changes in fire activity were investigated for the period 1961–2100 using the process-based dynamic vegetation model LPJ-GUESS coupled with SIMFIRE–BLAZE wildfire modules. Terrestrial vegetation was represented using regionally parameterized Plant Functional Types, and simulations were forced with ERA5-Land reanalysis for the historical period (1961–2025) and an ensemble of five CMIP6 climate projections under a high-emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5) for exploratory future analysis (2015–2100). Benchmarking against MODIS MCD64A1 observations revealed that while the model successfully reproduced domain-scale burned area magnitudes and interannual variability, weak spatial agreement highlighted the strong influence of localized anthropogenic ignition and suppression processes not represented in the natural-potential experimental design. Future projections indicated that changes in fire probability and return intervals are unlikely to be spatially uniform. Instead, simulation results highlight a fundamental reorganization of fire regimes driven by the interplay between hydroclimatic change, vegetation dynamics, and landscape structure. By combining temporally explicit reanalysis data with ensemble climate projections, this study distinguishes between the role of observed hydroclimatic extremes in shaping historical fire activity and the importance of long-term climate trajectories in constraining future risk. The findings suggest that climate change may not simply increase overall wildfire activity, but rather systematically redistribute fire risk across the region, with urgent implications for anticipating emerging hotspots and adapting fire management strategies.
- Preprint
(2812 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2747 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1498', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 May 2026
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Bikem Ekberzade, 30 May 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1498', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 May 2026
The proposed manuscript focuses on the use of a vegetation dynamics model (LPJ-GUESS) that includes a fire module to estimate potential future changes (by the end of the 21st century) for a region located in the northeastern part of the Mediterranean basin. First, a massive effort is made to analyze historical data to verify that the model accurately simulates the areas burned in the region over the historical period, as well as the fire recurrence interval and the years in which the burned areas are the largest. For this step, several satellite products tracking wildfires are used in conjunction with climate data derived from observed data (ERA5) or simulated data from various GCMs, in order to test them over the historical period as well; this is because, in a subsequent phase, these climate models and their simulations of future conditions will be used in a prospective mode.
Although such an analysis would be very useful, the manuscript, in its current form, is not ready for publication.
In my opinion, the most significant issues are as follows:
- The discussion section does not cite any references, which is almost shocking when considering submission to an international scientific journal
-The title refers to fire regimes, but there are several issues here: without the provided definition, a non-specialist reader might assume that the variables analyzed here on their own are sufficient to define and characterize this concept, but that is not the case. These variables are only a subset of the variables that must be analyzed to characterize the regime (fire-season start, end or duration, fire behaviour, fire cycle, and fire type (surface, crown or ground fire are also necessary) so it would be more accurate to mention them without actually referring to the regime. the second problem with the use of fire regime, is that this concept must be characterised at the ecosystem level (so here at the ecoregion level at best), not just at the regional level.
-Using only the FAPAR variable to represent the vegetation simulated by the model is not sufficient, as it does not necessarily reflect the fuels involved in fires and their spread. The advantage of using a DGVM is the ability to utilize the information provided by Plant Functional Types (PFTs), as this allows for the separation of herbaceous and woody components, and even the distinction between shrubby and tree PFTs if information on the PFTs used and their parameterization is available. However, this is not the case here.
-The fact that there are ecoregions with a significant human impact—both in terms of land use (agriculture) and the use of fire to clear farmland after harvest—would require excluding these ecoregions from the analysis, or at least, by treating each ecoregion independently as required by the definition of the fire regime, and if aggregation can be necessary, to analyze them separately from other, less anthropized ones.
-Apart from the fact that the figures are very small, with captions that are virtually illegible, and that there are already so many of them, additional information should be added in a consistent manner: if the goal is to compare the period at the end of the 21st century with the historical period at the end of the 20th century, the figures presenting the simulations should systematically cover both of these periods, or at least showing the difference, with is not the case everywhere. The most problematic figure is Figure 10, particularly 10a and 10b because this Figure is the only reference to vegetation, but we do not know what types of PFTs this corresponds to, nor their proportions, nor the changes over time or across space....and as a result, this leads, for example, to questionable interpretations regarding “the redistribution of fire regimes”.
-If the dominant ecosystem that defines an ecoregion tends to regress inspace, stabilize, or migrate (translate) over time due to the impact of climate change, then we can speak of redistribution; however, if the ecoregion type remains spatially stable over time but fire-related variables (burned areas and their distribution, fire return intervals) change, then we can say that part of the fire regime is changing, but this should not necessarily be understood as spatial redistribution—which, however, is what the author seems to do, in my view, when he discusses this in relation to the firefighting resources currently deployed in certain regions. Actually it is true that they would need to adapt the figting strategy in allocating means differently, maybe, but fire regime changes must be considered in each ecoregion per se.
-I think the author could assist the reader when the reader needs to perform a visual analysis of the maps on their own. The author could use methods that allow for comparing maps in order to highlight areas with positive, negative, or independent correlations, depending on the variables being compared—such as vegetation productivity versus fire risk, or versus predicted or observed burned areas. There are several methods, varying in complexity, for taking spatial information and its autocorrelation into account.
In light of all these comments, which I believe are very important, I propose a major revision of the manuscript
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1498-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Bikem Ekberzade, 30 May 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 262 | 122 | 23 | 407 | 44 | 15 | 16 |
- HTML: 262
- PDF: 122
- XML: 23
- Total: 407
- Supplement: 44
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 16
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
In this work the author presents a detailed analysis of fire regimes in the NE Mediterranean region with the use of historical and current geospatial data. These data were processed through a dynamic vegetation model coupled with wildfire simulation models, in order to: i) reproduce historical fire dynamics, and ii) to produce future projections of wildfire dynamics (burned area, fire interval, spatial patterns, among others) under various climatic scenarios.
The overall quality of the manuscript is good, the structure is well-designed and helps the reader follow the methodological steps and the corresponding results and conclusions. The use of English is also more than adequate, in my opinion. Minor corrections may be needed by the editor, but I did not notice anything substantial. A variety of datasets were processed and used and the results are quite detailed, considering also the supplementary material. The research design is solid. I believe the outcome is of interest and the work meets at least the general standards for publishing.
I would suggest that the author includes a workflow where all main and subsequent methodological steps are clearly presented. This could really help the reader in going through the manuscript.