Dear Authors:

Thank you for providing your responses on the open discussion system.
Your manuscript got different evaluations from the referees: i.e., minor revision and reject. One of the critical concerns of the referee #2 is the low accuracy of the land cover data, which could lead to incorrect estimation results. After receiving your replies, I made contact with the referees. The referee #2 evaluated positively about the additional use or replacement of the land cover data to GlobLand30 and thought that the manuscript can be considered for publication if you address all the other comments. You provided references for the emission factors and addressed other points made by both referees.
After considering all the comments, I conclude that the manuscript can be considered for publication after major revision. I expect that you revise the manuscript fully on the basis of the discussion, so that scientific and presentation qualities are improved.

Dear authors:
Thank you for providing the revised manuscript. I confirmed it was adequately revised on the basis of your response to referee comments, such that uncertainty in relation to the land cover data was properly considered. This study used contemporary fire datasets (GFED, GFAS, and FINN) for comparison and provides implications to regional carbon and emission studies. One technical point is about the reference. Please use a consistent notation for doi information (i.e., some with “https://doi.org/” and others not). Including this technical correction, I recommend this manuscript being acceptable for publication.