The Role of the Soil Seed Bank in the Recovery and Restoration of a Burned Amazonian Terra Firme Forest

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As you know, the problem of reforestation is one of the most important today. This is due to the fact that against the background of anthropogenic impact (fires, for example), the properties of various components of the biogecenosis change. This leads to a change in the natural growing conditions of coniferous tree seeds. In anthropogenically disturbed conditions, other conditions are created for the development of biota, new (different from natural analogues) microbial communities are formed. The functional activity and composition of the latter has specifics, its deformation is possible. Mycorrhizal growers do not have the opportunity to fully interact with the root systems of plants, their ecological role in the community may be disrupted. In case of fire, forest litter burns out, hyperthermia leads to a sharp violation of the structure of the plant community. It can also be noted that it is possible to increase the heterogeneity of soil properties, increase the mosaic of the soil cover.  Despite the fact that questions about the development and spatial organization of seed material are constantly examined from various aspects, there are many unresolved and contradictory problems. In this regard, the issue of the impact of forest fires on the soil seed bank, which is raised in this article, is relevant.

The presented article is written in a very concise scientific language, the drawings are informative, the tabular material is presented very competently. The structure of the article is interesting, so it is very easy to read. The authors have collected a lot of material, so there is no doubt about the correctness of the presented conclusions. It should be noted that the work is of practical importance, since the materials obtained can be used by forestry services. In addition, I would like to note the importance of work in the field of developing the foundations for studying the post-pyrogenic development of forest ecosystems. The latter was well shown in the discussion of the results. It is necessary to emphasize the good statistical processing of the results, which allows you to correctly interpret the data, compare the results of the article with world works. I think that the article will be of interest to the entire world scientific community, as it is written clearly, all the terms are used correctly. There are comments in the work, which are given below.

2 - in the title twice And ...it is necessary to change

13 a little- why are there no quotes in the name, but there are?

21-24- what do animals have to do with it? something is not very good, I recommend not to write about them, this is not your topic...I suggest "getting out" on the carbon problem or monitoring

82 - how does the state of the microbiota in soils change during a fire?

97 - why in quotation marks?

161 - change the sentence, make it more concise ...

196- the results should be increased...everything is very crumpled, there is no common bundle, it is necessary to expand on each point...You have such good data!!!!

326-I would like to see some information about changes in soil properties under fire conditions, as well as what changes occur in the biotic component of soils?

327- written in very simple language, it needs to be done more scientifically...to show a little how the structure of forest ecosystems changes against the background of the pyrogenic factor, to note the formation of new food chains...It is possible to note the migration component of the formation of spatial heterogeneity of the biocomplex in conditions of pyrogenic influence...I would like to see information or a few words about the violation of the carbon cycle, because this topic is currently of concern to the entire world community!

In conclusion, I would like to thank the authors once again for their work, I wish them creative activity and good luck!!!

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear colleagues! The article is written in clear language, all terms are used correctly, I think it will be understandable to all English-speaking colleagues...

Author Response

Reviewer 1

1) Line 2 - in the title twice And ...it is necessary to change

R = The title has been adjusted.

 

2) Line 13 a little- why are there no quotes in the name, but there are?

R = Answered, the quotation marks have also been placed in the title.

 

3) Lines 21-24- what do animals have to do with it? something is not very good, I recommend not to write about them, this is not your topic...I suggest "getting out" on the carbon problem or monitoring

R = The Amazonian terra firme forest is completely dependent of seed dispersal by vertebrates for the recruitment of the old-growth flora (i.e. shade-tolerant forest-dependent species). As these seeds are not present in the soil seed bank, forest recovery or active restoration of fire-degraded forests rely on active seed dispersal from adult tree inhabiting the remaining patches of old-growth forests. However, most of vertebrates acting as seed dispersers have already been extirpated across social forests as the one we investigated.

 

4) Line 82 - how does the state of the microbiota in soils change during a fire?

R = Information on the impact of the microbiota has been added.

 

5) Line 97 - why in quotation marks?

R = The quotation marks were used because “terra firme” is a technical term in a non-English language, in this case Portuguese.

 

6) Line 161 - change the sentence, make it more concise ...

R = The sentence was modified.

 

7) Line 196- the results should be increased...everything is very crumpled, there is no common bundle, it is necessary to expand on each point...You have such good data!!!!

R = More information has been added to the results.

 

8) Line 326-I would like to see some information about changes in soil properties under fire conditions, as well as what changes occur in the biotic component of soils?

R = We added extra information, but please note that soil attributes is not our focus.

 

9) Line 327- written in very simple language, it needs to be done more scientifically...to show a little how the structure of forest ecosystems changes against the background of the pyrogenic factor, to note the formation of new food chains...It is possible to note the migration component of the formation of spatial heterogeneity of the biocomplex in conditions of pyrogenic influence...I would like to see information or a few words about the violation of the carbon cycle, because this topic is currently of concern to the entire world community!

R =  We completely agree and some information was added.

 

Reviewer 2

1. In chapter Introduction the aims of investigations or working hypotheses should be presented in clear points.

R = Both the objective and hypothesis have been informed.

2. The section Study area. Did You conducted measurements of abiotic conditions in study patches? Please, point out the similarities and differences among BF1, BF2, UF. 

R= We considered all forest stands as exposed to the same physical conditions with the exception of the wildfires.

3. The section Study area and study design.  In my opinion Figure presenting study area and sampling design shoud be very desirable. Please add part presenting mode of sampling to Figure 1.

R= Adding the figure to the main text could divert the reader's attention, since the focus of the figure is to show the study area in detail. For this reason, we have placed the figure with the sample drawing in the supplementary material where it can be consulted without interrupting the flow of the main text.

4. Study design section. Did You observed the spontaneous seedling recruitment also in natural condition?

R= During field campaigns, seedling assemblages across habitats were observed spontaneously offering the same perspective offered by the soil seed bank; i.e. a massive recruitment of light-demanding species across burned forest stands.

5. Data analysis section. Did You test statisticaly the differences in number of germinated seeds in BF1, BF2, UF for particular species? 

R= Statistical analyses were not carried out at species level, with exception of the indicator species analysis.

6. I suggest to move Figures 1-6 to main text. 

R = Figures have been added to the main text.

7. Results and Discussion. The interesting findings presented in Figure S4 should be more detaidly described and presented out in Discussion. 

R = More information was added to Figure S4, which became S5.

8. In chapter Discussion I suggest to more detaidly adress to species recruiting mainly in unburned and on the other hand taxa resistant to wildfire, growing in burned sites. 

R = Extra information was added.

9. I suggest to add the chapter Conclusions.

R = Attended.

10. Please, improve (according to Guide for Authors) way of implementing into text the literature sources and mode of citing them in References section.

R = Attended.

11. Please, look into following literature sources. Perhaps some of them would be helpful in manuscript improvements:

• Silva-Matos, Dalva M, Fonseca, Giovana D.F.M, & Silva-Lima, Leonardo. (2005). Differences on post-fire regeneration of the pioneer trees Cecropia glazioui and Trema micrantha in a lowland Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Revista de Biología Tropical, 53(1-2).
• Martínez-Ramos, M., Gallego-Mahecha,M. M., Valverde, T., Vega, E., & Bongers, F. (2021). Demographicdifferentiation among pioneer tree species during secondarysuccession of a Neotropical rainforest. Journal of Ecology, 109,3572–3586. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13738
• Ariel E. Lugo, Oscar J. Abelleira Martínez, Ernesto Medina, Gerardo Aymard, Tamara Heartsill Scalley, Chapter Two - Novelty in the tropical forests of the 21st century, Editor(s): Alex J. Dumbrell, Edgar C. Turner, Tom M. Fayle, Advances in Ecological Research, Volume 62, 2020, 53-116.

 

Reviewer 3

Only some orthographic corrections through the article.

R = The suggested spelling corrections have been included in the article.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

With great interests I have read Your manuscript titled „Soil seed bank and its potential for the recovery and restoration of a burned Amazonian terra firme forest”. I am convinced, that the valuable findings might interest an international audience.  At the same time, I have found some imperfections, which-in my opinion- should be corrected or at least clarified. I have lited them below:

1. In chapter Introduction the aims of investigations or working hypotheses should be presented in clear points.

2. The section Study area. Did You contucted measurements of abiotic conditions in study patches? Please, point out the similarities and differences among BF1, BF2, UF. 

3. The section Study area and study design.  In my opinion Figure presenting study area and sampling design shoud be very desirable. Please add part presenting mode of sampling to Figure 1.

4. Study design section. Did You observed the spontaneous seedling recruitment also in natural condition?

5. Data analysis section. Did You test statisticaly the differences in number of germinated seeds in BF1, BF2, UF for particular species? 

6. I suggest to move Figures 1-6 to main text. 

7. Results and Discussion. The interesting findings presented in Figure S4 should be more detaidly described and presented out in Discussion. 

8. In chapter Discussion I suggest to more detaidly adress to species recruiting mainly in unburned and on the other hand taxa resistant to wildfire, growing in burned sites. 

9. I suggest to add the chapter Conclussions.

10. Please, improve (according to Guide for Authors) way of implementing into text the literature sources and mode of citing them in References section.

11. Please, look into following literature sources. Perhaps some of them would be helpful in manuscript improvements:

• Silva-Matos, Dalva M, Fonseca, Giovana D.F.M, & Silva-Lima, Leonardo. (2005). Differences on post-fire regeneration of the pioneer trees Cecropia glazioui and Trema micrantha in a lowland Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Revista de Biología Tropical, 53(1-2).

• Martínez-Ramos, M., Gallego-Mahecha,M. M., Valverde, T., Vega, E., & Bongers, F. (2021). Demographicdifferentiation among pioneer tree species during secondarysuccession of a Neotropical rainforest. Journal of Ecology, 109,3572–3586. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13738

• Ariel E. Lugo, Oscar J. Abelleira Martínez, Ernesto Medina, Gerardo Aymard, Tamara Heartsill Scalley, Chapter Two - Novelty in the tropical forests of the 21st century, Editor(s): Alex J. Dumbrell, Edgar C. Turner, Tom M. Fayle, Advances in Ecological Research, Volume 62, 2020, 53-116.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

1) Line 2 - in the title twice And ...it is necessary to change

R = The title has been adjusted.

 

2) Line 13 a little- why are there no quotes in the name, but there are?

R = Answered, the quotation marks have also been placed in the title.

 

3) Lines 21-24- what do animals have to do with it? something is not very good, I recommend not to write about them, this is not your topic...I suggest "getting out" on the carbon problem or monitoring

R = The Amazonian terra firme forest is completely dependent of seed dispersal by vertebrates for the recruitment of the old-growth flora (i.e. shade-tolerant forest-dependent species). As these seeds are not present in the soil seed bank, forest recovery or active restoration of fire-degraded forests rely on active seed dispersal from adult tree inhabiting the remaining patches of old-growth forests. However, most of vertebrates acting as seed dispersers have already been extirpated across social forests as the one we investigated.

 

4) Line 82 - how does the state of the microbiota in soils change during a fire?

R = Information on the impact of the microbiota has been added.

 

5) Line 97 - why in quotation marks?

R = The quotation marks were used because “terra firme” is a technical term in a non-English language, in this case Portuguese.

 

6) Line 161 - change the sentence, make it more concise ...

R = The sentence was modified.

 

7) Line 196- the results should be increased...everything is very crumpled, there is no common bundle, it is necessary to expand on each point...You have such good data!!!!

R = More information has been added to the results.

 

8) Line 326-I would like to see some information about changes in soil properties under fire conditions, as well as what changes occur in the biotic component of soils?

R = We added extra information, but please note that soil attributes is not our focus.

 

9) Line 327- written in very simple language, it needs to be done more scientifically...to show a little how the structure of forest ecosystems changes against the background of the pyrogenic factor, to note the formation of new food chains...It is possible to note the migration component of the formation of spatial heterogeneity of the biocomplex in conditions of pyrogenic influence...I would like to see information or a few words about the violation of the carbon cycle, because this topic is currently of concern to the entire world community!

R =  We completely agree and some information was added.

 

Reviewer 2

1. In chapter Introduction the aims of investigations or working hypotheses should be presented in clear points.

R = Both the objective and hypothesis have been informed.

2. The section Study area. Did You conducted measurements of abiotic conditions in study patches? Please, point out the similarities and differences among BF1, BF2, UF. 

R= We considered all forest stands as exposed to the same physical conditions with the exception of the wildfires.

3. The section Study area and study design.  In my opinion Figure presenting study area and sampling design shoud be very desirable. Please add part presenting mode of sampling to Figure 1.

R= Adding the figure to the main text could divert the reader's attention, since the focus of the figure is to show the study area in detail. For this reason, we have placed the figure with the sample drawing in the supplementary material where it can be consulted without interrupting the flow of the main text.

4. Study design section. Did You observed the spontaneous seedling recruitment also in natural condition?

R= During field campaigns, seedling assemblages across habitats were observed spontaneously offering the same perspective offered by the soil seed bank; i.e. a massive recruitment of light-demanding species across burned forest stands.

5. Data analysis section. Did You test statisticaly the differences in number of germinated seeds in BF1, BF2, UF for particular species? 

R= Statistical analyses were not carried out at species level, with exception of the indicator species analysis.

6. I suggest to move Figures 1-6 to main text. 

R = Figures have been added to the main text.

7. Results and Discussion. The interesting findings presented in Figure S4 should be more detaidly described and presented out in Discussion. 

R = More information was added to Figure S4, which became S5.

8. In chapter Discussion I suggest to more detaidly adress to species recruiting mainly in unburned and on the other hand taxa resistant to wildfire, growing in burned sites. 

R = Extra information was added.

9. I suggest to add the chapter Conclusions.

R = Attended.

10. Please, improve (according to Guide for Authors) way of implementing into text the literature sources and mode of citing them in References section.

R = Attended.

11. Please, look into following literature sources. Perhaps some of them would be helpful in manuscript improvements:

• Silva-Matos, Dalva M, Fonseca, Giovana D.F.M, & Silva-Lima, Leonardo. (2005). Differences on post-fire regeneration of the pioneer trees Cecropia glazioui and Trema micrantha in a lowland Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Revista de Biología Tropical, 53(1-2).
• Martínez-Ramos, M., Gallego-Mahecha,M. M., Valverde, T., Vega, E., & Bongers, F. (2021). Demographicdifferentiation among pioneer tree species during secondarysuccession of a Neotropical rainforest. Journal of Ecology, 109,3572–3586. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13738
• Ariel E. Lugo, Oscar J. Abelleira Martínez, Ernesto Medina, Gerardo Aymard, Tamara Heartsill Scalley, Chapter Two - Novelty in the tropical forests of the 21st century, Editor(s): Alex J. Dumbrell, Edgar C. Turner, Tom M. Fayle, Advances in Ecological Research, Volume 62, 2020, 53-116.

 

Reviewer 3

Only some orthographic corrections through the article.

R = The suggested spelling corrections have been included in the article.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is scientifically interesting. In addition, it is well structured and written.

All its sections are congruent among them, and the information given in the Results and its confrontation in the Discussion is appropriate to the objective proposed.

Only some orthographic corrections through the article.

Please, see file attached. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1

1) Line 2 - in the title twice And ...it is necessary to change

R = The title has been adjusted.

 

2) Line 13 a little- why are there no quotes in the name, but there are?

R = Answered, the quotation marks have also been placed in the title.

 

3) Lines 21-24- what do animals have to do with it? something is not very good, I recommend not to write about them, this is not your topic...I suggest "getting out" on the carbon problem or monitoring

R = The Amazonian terra firme forest is completely dependent of seed dispersal by vertebrates for the recruitment of the old-growth flora (i.e. shade-tolerant forest-dependent species). As these seeds are not present in the soil seed bank, forest recovery or active restoration of fire-degraded forests rely on active seed dispersal from adult tree inhabiting the remaining patches of old-growth forests. However, most of vertebrates acting as seed dispersers have already been extirpated across social forests as the one we investigated.

 

4) Line 82 - how does the state of the microbiota in soils change during a fire?

R = Information on the impact of the microbiota has been added.

 

5) Line 97 - why in quotation marks?

R = The quotation marks were used because “terra firme” is a technical term in a non-English language, in this case Portuguese.

 

6) Line 161 - change the sentence, make it more concise ...

R = The sentence was modified.

 

7) Line 196- the results should be increased...everything is very crumpled, there is no common bundle, it is necessary to expand on each point...You have such good data!!!!

R = More information has been added to the results.

 

8) Line 326-I would like to see some information about changes in soil properties under fire conditions, as well as what changes occur in the biotic component of soils?

R = We added extra information, but please note that soil attributes is not our focus.

 

9) Line 327- written in very simple language, it needs to be done more scientifically...to show a little how the structure of forest ecosystems changes against the background of the pyrogenic factor, to note the formation of new food chains...It is possible to note the migration component of the formation of spatial heterogeneity of the biocomplex in conditions of pyrogenic influence...I would like to see information or a few words about the violation of the carbon cycle, because this topic is currently of concern to the entire world community!

R =  We completely agree and some information was added.

 

Reviewer 2

1. In chapter Introduction the aims of investigations or working hypotheses should be presented in clear points.

R = Both the objective and hypothesis have been informed.

2. The section Study area. Did You conducted measurements of abiotic conditions in study patches? Please, point out the similarities and differences among BF1, BF2, UF. 

R= We considered all forest stands as exposed to the same physical conditions with the exception of the wildfires.

3. The section Study area and study design.  In my opinion Figure presenting study area and sampling design shoud be very desirable. Please add part presenting mode of sampling to Figure 1.

R= Adding the figure to the main text could divert the reader's attention, since the focus of the figure is to show the study area in detail. For this reason, we have placed the figure with the sample drawing in the supplementary material where it can be consulted without interrupting the flow of the main text.

4. Study design section. Did You observed the spontaneous seedling recruitment also in natural condition?

R= During field campaigns, seedling assemblages across habitats were observed spontaneously offering the same perspective offered by the soil seed bank; i.e. a massive recruitment of light-demanding species across burned forest stands.

5. Data analysis section. Did You test statisticaly the differences in number of germinated seeds in BF1, BF2, UF for particular species? 

R= Statistical analyses were not carried out at species level, with exception of the indicator species analysis.

6. I suggest to move Figures 1-6 to main text. 

R = Figures have been added to the main text.

7. Results and Discussion. The interesting findings presented in Figure S4 should be more detaidly described and presented out in Discussion. 

R = More information was added to Figure S4, which became S5.

8. In chapter Discussion I suggest to more detaidly adress to species recruiting mainly in unburned and on the other hand taxa resistant to wildfire, growing in burned sites. 

R = Extra information was added.

9. I suggest to add the chapter Conclusions.

R = Attended.

10. Please, improve (according to Guide for Authors) way of implementing into text the literature sources and mode of citing them in References section.

R = Attended.

11. Please, look into following literature sources. Perhaps some of them would be helpful in manuscript improvements:

• Silva-Matos, Dalva M, Fonseca, Giovana D.F.M, & Silva-Lima, Leonardo. (2005). Differences on post-fire regeneration of the pioneer trees Cecropia glazioui and Trema micrantha in a lowland Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Revista de Biología Tropical, 53(1-2).
• Martínez-Ramos, M., Gallego-Mahecha,M. M., Valverde, T., Vega, E., & Bongers, F. (2021). Demographicdifferentiation among pioneer tree species during secondarysuccession of a Neotropical rainforest. Journal of Ecology, 109,3572–3586. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13738
• Ariel E. Lugo, Oscar J. Abelleira Martínez, Ernesto Medina, Gerardo Aymard, Tamara Heartsill Scalley, Chapter Two - Novelty in the tropical forests of the 21st century, Editor(s): Alex J. Dumbrell, Edgar C. Turner, Tom M. Fayle, Advances in Ecological Research, Volume 62, 2020, 53-116.

 

Reviewer 3

Only some orthographic corrections through the article.

R = The suggested spelling corrections have been included in the article.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear colleagues, good afternoon! I read the article again.  Your work is of great scientific importance, therefore it should be published. The materials are interesting and of great practical importance!  Thank you so much for responding to all my comments! The article, it seems to me, has become more interesting. I wish you good luck in your work!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear colleagues! I read the article, everything is clear, the scientific terms are used correctly, there are no comments. I really hope that the article will be understandable to everyone who is engaged in this field.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I do not have any further suggestions for improvement of manuscript.