Dear authors

You have seen the very harsh comments raised by both reviewers on this manuscript. Based on their assessment, and considering the fact that both are long-time experts of fires in Brazil/South America, I was initially inclined to reject the manuscript. Both reviewers agree on the lack of novelty of this work and a major lack of citing abundant references on recent published material covering similar topics.

In particular, Reviewer1 states clearly that the “there is no clear research questions, the results are hard to follow but basically the Moreira de Araujo et al 2015 paper shows the same pattern and is heavily used in the discussion, so again the question is what is the value added of this work?” . Similarly Reviewer2 explains that “some conclusions are not based on the results…” and that, unlike what is stated by the authors on the applicability of the method presented; “I don’t think this work shows a ’method’. Instead, it is mainly devoted to a spatial and seasonal description of available variables”.

Nevertheless, I must acknowledge that the authors have made an impressive work to answer in detail most questions raised by both reviewers including new analysis, figures, etc. In fact, considering all the material provided in the answering letters the authors raised the prospect of being able to provide a major overhaul of the manuscript. Therefore, I can only decide to ask the authors to provide the highly upgraded version of their manuscript in order to be sent again to both reviewers that will decide on the merits of it.

Regards, Ricardo Trigo
NHESS Editor

Dear Authors

We have now received a second review from the reviewer that was most skeptical in the first round of revisions. The reviewer acknowledges the major improvement that your manuscript has registered.
Nevertheless the reviewer still requires a number of further clarifications, including several possible merges (or simple delete) of figures. Particularly among Figures 2,3 and 4. But also to merge Figures 8 and 9. I fully support these recommendations that can streamline the paper without unnecessary repetition of information.
There are a number of important additional topics raised by the reviewer, namely on the use of LULC and satellite data sets that require further explanation and I expect that you take all into account in a revised version of the manuscript.
Please revise carefully the names, dates, spellings, etc for each reference/citation.

Looking forward to receive your updated manuscript

Ricardo Trigo

Dear authors

Many thanks fro the great job you've done answering to all the points raised by the reviewer. I believe the work has improved significantly with the inclusion of statistical test and more appropriate LULC information and the reduction in two figures is also positive.
I'm asking for a final assessment by the reviewer.

Best regards

Ricardo

Dear Authors

We have received another review (from reviewer#2) of your manuscript. Overall, the reviewer is positive about the good improvement on the contents of your study and how you have dealt with previous questions raised. However, this reviewer is still recommending some (minor) additional changes prior to finding the work suitable for publication in NHESS. Therefore, my decision is “acceptable subject to minor revisions".

Looking forward to receive your improved version of the manuscript and a letter explaining how you've answered to the reviewer's final remarks.

Best regards

Ricardo Trigo

Dear Authors

Your manuscript has now been accepted for publication. Congratulations, and thank you for choosing NHESS as an outlet for your work.

Best regards

Ricardo Trigo