User:Cornelius-Nic/Fossil record of fire/LeonardoVillacis Peer Review

General info
Cornelius-Nic
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Fossil record of fire

Evaluate the drafted changes
It seems to me that there is currently bad organization of the paragraphs. The lead goes straight into the time line while the second paragraph touches on some more general topics that should be introduced first. ~LeonardoVillacis

Peer review
Charcoal- a fire proxy

I think this paragraph is nicely laid out. In particular, it does a nice job of describing the role of charcoal as a proxy for fire. Nevertheless, I notice a few problems.


 * 1) I think this paragraph, which should be the lead paragraph of the whole article "fossil record of fire", dives too quickly into charcoal. The characterization of charcoal is nice, I just think that a sentence at the beginning that says something like "Wild fires have been traced in the past through the presence of charcoal in sedimentary records.", would be very helpful to ease the reader into the subject which is fire record and not charcoal.
 * 2) CHAR is not an abbreviation for charcoal. It is an abbreviation for Charcoal accumulation rate (CHAR).
 * 3) Avoid using words like "very". "very important" could be changed to something more objective like "prominent in paleoecological studies"
 * 4) I think in this paragraph it would be good to introduce three key concepts.
 * 5) Wild fires as a natural phenomenon.
 * 6) Time as a feature of fire records and how magnitude of fire events through time are calculated based on the charcoal accumulation rate and not the concentration of charcoal itself. This should let a reader without previous knowledge understand that you can trace the magnitude of wild fires in the past through the rate of accumulation of charcoal in a sedimentary record. There is detailed section on this later but I think this a key aspect of fire records "accumulation rate".
 * 7) Briefly, the types of charcoal that are used to trace fire. So it is important to point out that macroscopic charcoal will sense local fire events, while microscopic charcoal will tell you about a larger spatial range (regional) of fire events.

Macroscopic charcoal processing

I like this paragraph but I think it should be placed last. A novel reader my not find value in learning about the actual method of sieving charcoal, and my be more interested in the following paragraphs that describe some detailed information about fire records and their larger implications. Nevertheless, a more experienced reader will likely find more value in this paragraph.

Fire triangle

Not really a common concept. This paragraph is nice in relaying important concepts related to fire. In this sense could be easily fit into the next section. I only found one publication that mentions this concept explicitly "Bickerton, J. (2012). The fire triangle. Loss Prevention Bulletin, (226)". I think that using this concept is more of a pedagogical tool. I could be wrong but I think it distracts the reader from the important concepts that are within this paragraph. Sources of ignition are varied and key to understanding fire dynamics and deserves its own space in the concepts section. Fuel is also as important in modulating fire dynamics and deserves its own bullet point. Oxygen is more of a constant and should only be mentioned when comparing fire records that reach back very far in time.

I tell you this with good faith. I have co-authored papers related to paleofires and have never seen this concept in any formal setting. I could be mentioned briefly. In any case, the phrase "It is important to note that these three components of fire leave behind charcoal remains..." should be changed to "Wild fires require the combination oxygen, biofuel, and ignition sources.", since none of these components really leave charcoal.

Fire concepts in paleoecology

Good section that could be merged with the previous paragraph. A few observations.


 * 1) I would advocate that Fire magnitude is more precise than fire intensity, at least within the literature I am familiar with. Also, I recommend using the concept "stand-replacing fires" when talking about high magnitude/intensity fires.
 * 2) Please use "local fire events" when talking about frequency.
 * 3) I have never heard of fire cycle but I have read about fire return intervals. It is also worded in a confusing manner.
 * 4) Climate is the collective body of weather patterns so it is not necessary to state weather.

Effects of fire

Awesome section. I think that the "destruction of fire understory" section is debatable. Sometimes Fire opens the canopy letting the light pass which leads to understory flourishing.

Great job! I leave you with this publication that shows some the beautiful things that you can get from fire records and a lot of key concepts inside. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2022.107899

Best ~LeonardoVillacis