Fire Impacts on Recruitment Dynamics in a Seasonal Tropical Forest in Continental Southeast Asia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The peer-reviewed paper is on The effects of fire on recruitment dynamics in a seasonal tropical forest in a continental tropical forest in mainland Southeast Asia. This is a very important problem from the point of view of applied ecology and to know the mechanisms of species diversity. The obtained results are reliable and presented clearly. I propose to include in the paper some photographs of tree species growing in the study area.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
General Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In this work an investigation of Fire Impacts on Recruitment Dynamics in a Seasonal Tropical 2 Forest in Continental Southeast Asia was proposed.
The analysis carried out by the authors is extremely interesting nevertheless some critical points are present in the work. A major review on the work structure needs to be done.
First of all 11 out of 46 papers presented in the literature are by the authors. This means that almost 25% of the literature in this paper is self-referential! I find this behaviour quite unfair. I advise the authors to moderate their self-citations considerably and to support their work with other scientific literature as well. Secondly title of the work should be related to recovery of forested areas following fires? I would then change recruitment with recovery. In the study area section, I recommend supplementing the paragraph by adding the study area map (a simple map in which the area of interest is geographically placed relative to a known context such as perhaps the state). The data used in the work are not clear and explained. review this section in depth keeping the materials well separated with the methods used. The material section should contain the basics for understanding the results. Consequently, I recommend giving the same name to the paragraph. Finally, I recommend that the authors create a workflow to make easier to understand all the operations performed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
- Introduction. Several references can be added to the text of the manuscript. Here is a small number of references (https://dx.doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2019.034; DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.231; https://dx.doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2019.048; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00816-3; https://dx.doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2019.033; DOI: 10.1071/WF17065; https://dx.doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2019.055; https://dx.doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2019.009; https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[1484:NASOFL]2.0.CO;2; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.07.005; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1788-8), although there are many more.
- Line 291-303. Unnecessary information.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
No further comments need to be made as the authors have replied to all the previous ones.
Author Response
Responses to comments
Point 1: Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?
Response: The previous manuscript we submitted has provided all relevant background and references in the Introduction, and that also related to other reviewer comments in the previous. Therefore, we have completely revised those in the previous one and we have no more additional information added in the introduction for this revision.
Point 2: Comments and Suggestions for Authors: No further comments need to be made as the authors have replied to all the previous ones.
Response: As we revised according to your previous comments. Thank you very much.
