Spot-fire distance increases disproportionately for wildfires compared to prescribed fires as grasslands transition to Juniperus woodlands

Victoria M. Donovan; Dillon T. Fogarty; Dirac Twidwell

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0283816

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 19, 2022
23 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Walter Finsinger, Editor PONE-D-22-20383 Prescribed fire reduces wildfire risk from woody encroachment in grasslands PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Donovan, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. I'm awfully sorry to get back to you after such a long time. Meanwhile, I received comments from one reviewer and additionally assessed the manuscript myself. The reviewer noted that the manuscript should be improved as it lacked clarity in some parts of the text and Figures could be reduced and improved. Please also find my additional thoughts: L55: am not sure as to whether the term "extreme fire" is sufficiently clear in this context. Does "extreme" refer to the fire severity? L103-104: here you mention that vegetation communities are dominated by two "alternative states: mixed grass prairie communities and monoculture woodlands consisting of mature juniper trees". However, as of L131-132 it seems that there are at least three different levels of juniper encroachment, including vegetation types ranging from grasslands, to juniper encroached grasslands, to juniper woodland. Moreover, I wonder whether the term "monoculture woodlands" may cause confusion, as it may be associated with plantation forestry. L189-192: it is not entirely clear why the Wildfire category does not include fires occurring at low wind speeds. I can see the arguments for limiting the occurrence of "Prescribed Fires" to a certain range of wind speeds, but wonder on which basis the occurrence of wildfires at low wind speeds is excluded. In other words: why not include fires occurring at low wind speeds in the wildfire category and modify the text and Figures 2-4. L192: could you clarify which smoothing function you used and show in Figure 2 the actual non smoothed values (for instance as empty circles) ? L235-255: (Following my suggestion to L189-192) To my humble understanding, you are assuming that wildfires never occur at low wind speeds, which explains the categorisation into "prescribed fires" and "wildfires". By contrast, you could take another, eventually more balanced viewpoint to argue that fires occurring at low wind speeds (such as prescribed fires) have lower spot fire distances. Further, I might be wrong, but think that lower spot-fire distances in less-encroached landscapes may reduce the risk of fire spread, but I wonder if they would reduce the risk of fire occurrence. Caption to Figure 1: could you clarify what land-cover types are included in the "non-receptive fuels" category? Figure 1: an inset showing the location of Nebraska in N-America may be useful. Figure 2: the yellow and orange lines seem to intercept the y-axis at slightly negative values, thus at negative maximum spotting distance. Figure 4: could you highlight in Figure 1 (or in Figure 4 Column 1) the single burn unit that is shown in Column 2 ? Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 07 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Walter Finsinger, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/fileid=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “Funding for this research was provided by Nebraska Game & Parks Commission (W-125-R-1), Nebraska Environmental Trust (20-139-2), and the University of Nebraska’s Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources. We thank landowners in the Loess Canyons who provided their prescribed burn information.” We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “DT received funding Nebraska Game & Parks Commission (W-125-R-1) http://outdoornebraska.gov/ Nebraska Environmental Trust (20-139-2) https://environmentaltrust.nebraska.gov/ University of Nebraska’s Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources https://ianr.unl.edu/ The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. We note that [Figures 1 and 4] in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 and 4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This study is aiming at guiding the stakeholders to choose the prescribed burn solution instead of waiting for wildfires to occur. The study site is in a mixed vegetation covers, offering three major landscape fuels: herb dominated, mixed herb and trees, and woodland. I noticed three majors lacks of clear and complete details in the manuscript about the vegetation, about the landscape and about the modelling choices, that I would strongly suggest to address. The first one is about the juniper species tested here, and not available in BehavePlus model. Even if there are similar ember flux between juniper tree and the fir considered, they don’t have the same vegetative height, moisture behavior, and flammable behavior. As you considered partly juniper parameters directly, why not implemented directly the species into the model? Furthermore, as it is an encroachment, the juniper trees are not mature, and should probably not attain the max height. I would suggest to use the median values instead. We miss here important details on the fire regime (frequency, fire return intervals in the three different landscapes in wildfire conditions, is the prescribed burn annual?). We also miss information on how the fire ignition is modelled (fig. 4 landscape and single). why the ignition on the single fire panels is always at the same place? Where are the fire ignitions in landscape panels? And most of all, in the encroachment landscape, the proportion of trees in the landscape is not detailed, as well as the torching trees portion in the trees and in the landscape. In the discussion section, the authors stated that the prescribed fires mitigate the spot fire risk associated with wildfires, but they did not test this hypothesis. Indeed, they looked at the spot fires in these two different conditions, but did not run a wildfire after a prescribed burn in the same area. The fire risk is not reduced, but the area burned and the spot distance can be if a wildfire occurs after a prescribed burn. In general, the differences, as stated in the results and discussion section are not tested. Here are minor comments: L 118-120 Seasonality and frequency of prescribed fires are lacking L 132 what proportion of the landscape represents junipers in the encroachment landscape? A figure of Loess Canyons Fuel complex will help to understand the fuel load and possible spread. Fig 1: Rather than a small insert of Nebraska alone, readers can gain in having the juniper tree distribution map in the continental US Table 3. what percentage that represents in the landscape 30 torching trees? L 176 diameter Fig 2 this maximum spot fire distance depends on the number of juniper trees in the landscape. Please add this information somewhere Fig 2 and 3 are repetitive. I’ll go for fig 3 only, and change the caption (the difference is not tested here, but the range of values with the median highlighted in boxplots) L 263 how a low intensity fire can burn a juniper tree while an intense fire is required to suppress them each 1-2 years? Is frequent here use to determine more than 1 burn a year? L276 so this is a reverse version of what you just said. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283816.r001
Revision 1
2 Mar 2023 Author Response Response to Review: Manuscript PONE-D-22-20383 Response to Editor E1.1: L55: am not sure as to whether the term "extreme fire" is sufficiently clear in this context. Does "extreme" refer to the fire severity? Response: We have changed the term to high intensity fire. E1.2: L103-104: here you mention that vegetation communities are dominated by two "alternative states: mixed grass prairie communities and monoculture woodlands consisting of mature juniper trees". However, as of L131-132 it seems that there are at least three different levels of juniper encroachment, including vegetation types ranging from grasslands, to juniper encroached grasslands, to juniper woodland. Moreover, I wonder whether the term "monoculture woodlands" may cause confusion, as it may be associated with plantation forestry. Response: Thank you for noting this. We have edited the text to read: “Vegetation communities can be described based on a gradient of woody encroachment from un-encroached mixed grass prairie to juniper woodlands that have resulted from unchecked woody encroachment into grassland areas.” We have removed the term “monoculture woodland” to avoid confusion. E1.3: L189-192: it is not entirely clear why the Wildfire category does not include fires occurring at low wind speeds. I can see the arguments for limiting the occurrence of "Prescribed Fires" to a certain range of wind speeds, but wonder on which basis the occurrence of wildfires at low wind speeds is excluded. In other words: why not include fires occurring at low wind speeds in the wildfire category and modify the text and Figures 2-4. Response: We have updated the manuscript to include all windspeeds in the wildfire category. The text has been correspondingly updated throughout, and we have edited Figures 3-4 to represent this change as recommended. Based on comment R1.10 from Reviewer 1, we have removed Figure 2 from the manuscript. E1.4: L192: could you clarify which smoothing function you used and show in Figure 2 the actual non smoothed values (for instance as empty circles)? Response: Based on comment R1.10 from Reviewer 1, we have removed Figure 2 from the manuscript. E1.5: L235-255: (Following my suggestion to L189-192) To my humble understanding, you are assuming that wildfires never occur at low wind speeds, which explains the categorization into "prescribed fires" and "wildfires". By contrast, you could take another, eventually more balanced viewpoint to argue that fires occurring at low wind speeds (such as prescribed fires) have lower spot fire distances. Further, I might be wrong, but think that lower spot-fire distances in less-encroached landscapes may reduce the risk of fire spread, but I wonder if they would reduce the risk of fire occurrence. Response: As suggested in E1.3, we have updated the manuscript to discuss wildfires as referring to the full range of wind speeds. We have updated the phrasing of this paragraph to reflect this change as suggested. E1.6: Caption to Figure 1: could you clarify what land-cover types are included in the "non-receptive fuels" category? Response: We removed the receptive and non-receptive fuels map from Fig 1 while revising to accommodate E1.7 and R1.6. E1.7: Figure 1: an inset showing the location of Nebraska in N-America may be useful. Response: Completed. E1.8: Figure 2: the yellow and orange lines seem to intercept the y-axis at slightly negative values, thus at negative maximum spotting distance. Response: Based on comment R1.10 from Reviewer 1, we have removed Figure 2 from the manuscript. E1.9: Figure 4: could you highlight in Figure 1 (or in Figure 4 Column 1) the single burn unit that is shown in Column 2? Response: We have highlighted the burn unit in Figure 4. Response to Reviewer 1 R1.1: This study is aiming at guiding the stakeholders to choose the prescribed burn solution instead of waiting for wildfires to occur. The study site is in a mixed vegetation covers, offering three major landscape fuels: herb dominated, mixed herb and trees, and woodland. I noticed three majors lacks of clear and complete details in the manuscript about the vegetation, about the landscape and about the modelling choices, that I would strongly suggest to address. The first one is about the juniper species tested here, and not available in BehavePlus model. Even if there are similar ember flux between juniper tree and the fir considered, they don’t have the same vegetative height, moisture behavior, and flammable behavior. As you considered partly juniper parameters directly, why not implemented directly the species into the model? Furthermore, as it is an encroachment, the juniper trees are not mature, and should probably not attain the max height. I would suggest to use the median values instead. Response: There is no juniper model available to use to model spot fire distance and to our knowledge, the data needed to develop our own model is not available. Thus, we chose the best option available to be input into Albini’s spot fire models. We have clarified in the text that we selected surface fire models in an encroached grassland over the torching tree scenario to represent spot fire distances in encroached grasslands because, while similar, this model had slightly higher spot fire distances at high wind speeds and we were interested in maximum potential spot fire distances. Decreasing the tree height as suggested only decreases the spot fire distance from the torching tree, and thus, further supports our use of the surface fuel model to determine the maximum spot fire distance possible under this scenario. R1.2: We miss here important details on the fire regime (frequency, fire return intervals in the three different landscapes in wildfire conditions, is the prescribed burn annual?). We also miss information on how the fire ignition is modelled (fig. 4 landscape and single). why the ignition on the single fire panels is always at the same place? Where are the fire ignitions in landscape panels? And most of all, in the encroachment landscape, the proportion of trees in the landscape is not detailed, as well as the torching trees portion in the trees and in the landscape. Response: We have clarified in the text that we do not assess fire regime, only fire behavior predicted under each listed scenario. Behave Plus is based on a point system where conditions are assumed uniform. Thus, there is no spatial configuration associated with ignition. We have added this to the text. Figure 4 (now Figure 3- see our response to R1.10) simply visualizes the different maximum spot fire distances possible based on the fuel model outputs from different wind speeds and encroachment scenarios relative to burn unit perimeters used in the Loess Canyons. We have updated the language in the Figure caption to clarify this point. R1.3: In the discussion section, the authors stated that the prescribed fires mitigate the spot fire risk associated with wildfires, but they did not test this hypothesis. Indeed, they looked at the spot fires in these two different conditions, but did not run a wildfire after a prescribed burn in the same area. The fire risk is not reduced, but the area burned and the spot distance can be if a wildfire occurs after a prescribed burn. In general, the differences, as stated in the results and discussion section are not tested. Response: Thank you for this comment. We agree. We re-phrased sections of the abstract, results, and discussion to reflect our findings more clearly. We have also adjusted the title of our manuscript for further clarity. We think this will also bring more clarity to the questions raised by the reviewer in R1.2. R1.4: L 118-120 Seasonality and frequency of prescribed fires are lacking Response: As noted in the text, burns occur between early February and late April. The landscape is currently under reclamation; thus, burns are not currently being repeated. We have added this to the text. Also, please see our response to R1.2. R1.5: L 132 what proportion of the landscape represents junipers in the encroachment landscape? A figure of Loess Canyons Fuel complex will help to understand the fuel load and possible spread. Response: Fuel complex percentages in the Loess Canyons are summarized in Table 1. We have added a fuel complex map for the Loess Canyons to the supporting information (S1 Fig). Changes in tree cover in the Loess Canyons can be seen on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app/). Due to copyright limitations associated with PLOS’s open access policy, we cannot provide maps from the Rangeland Analysis Platform in our manuscript. However, the reviewer can view the Loess Canyons region by going to the coordinates (40.8611304, -100.2479634). R1.6: Fig 1: Rather than a small insert of Nebraska alone, readers can gain in having the juniper tree distribution map in the continental US Response: We have added a map inset of the United States to show where the Loess Canyons landscape falls and have color coded states based on the current distribution of Juniperus virginiana. R1.7: Table 3. what percentage that represents in the landscape 30 torching trees? Response: We selected 30 torching trees because it was the highest number of trees we could select in Behave Plus and thus would represent the densest woodland on the landscape. Data isn’t available to calculate the number of trees per unit area in the Loess Canyons. That said, using the Rangeland Analysis Platform, we have calculated that ~9% of the Loess Canyons has greater than 50% tree cover in 2020. Tree cover in the Loess Canyons can be seen on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app/). Due to copyright limitations associated with PLOS’s open access policy, we cannot provide a map. However, the reviewer can view the Loess Canyons region by going to the co-ordinates (40.8611304, -100.2479634). R1.8: L 176 diameter Response: Thank you for catching this. Fixed. R1.9: Fig 2 this maximum spot fire distance depends on the number of juniper trees in the landscape. Please add this information somewhere Response: Based on the reviewer’s comment in R1.10, we have removed Figure 2 from the manuscript. R1.10: Fig 2 and 3 are repetitive. I’ll go for fig 3 only, and change the caption (the difference is not tested here, but the range of values with the median highlighted in boxplots) Response: We have removed Fig 2 from the manuscript as recommended. R1.11: L 263 how a low intensity fire can burn a juniper tree while an intense fire is required to suppress them each 1-2 years? Is frequent here use to determine more than 1 burn a year? L276 so this is a reverse version of what you just said. Response: Seedlings can be killed with low intensity fire but adult trees cannot. High intensity fire is needed to overcome adult juniper mortality thresholds. In the Loess Canyons, this is achieved through fuel manipulation. Following high intensity fire, juniper encroachment can rapidly begin again. Thus, frequent low intensity prescribed fires are needed to maintain grasslands following restoration with high intensity fire. We clarify this in the Discussion and note that fuel manipulation is used to achieve high intensity fire under prescribed fire conditions in the Loess Canyons in the Methods. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Review3.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283816.r002
20 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Walter Finsinger, Editor Spot-fire distance increases disproportionately for wildfires compared to prescribed fires as grasslands transition to Juniperus woodlands PONE-D-22-20383R1 Dear Dr. Donovan, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Walter Finsinger, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Please make sure all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability) and that there's a link from your paper to the repository holding the data. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Berangere Leys ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283816.r003
Formally Accepted
3 Apr 2023 Acceptance Letter - Walter Finsinger, Editor PONE-D-22-20383R1 Spot-fire distance increases disproportionately for wildfires compared to prescribed fires as grasslands transition to Juniperus woodlands Dear Dr. Donovan: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Walter Finsinger Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283816.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .