Vegetation Monitoring and Post-Fire Recovery: A Case Study in the Centre Inland of Portugal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript explored the relationship between vegetation index and post-fire recovery by using a 17-year timeseries data in the Centre land of Protugal. The research design, questions, hypotheses and methods was clearly stated, but the length of manuscript doesn't match its importance. 

Specific comment:

1. Lines 13-17: too many words of "to". Improving or summarizing this sentence. "to derive" rather than "to model".

2. Introduction: This section is too long and wordy. Too many nonsense sentences in this section.

3. Line 41: However? there is no adversative relation from the context. 

4. Lines 37-47: These sentences are only read [7] for reference?

5. Please give the fitting curve in Fig. 8.

6. Figures 9(a) and 10(a): what is the x-axis? I do not think it is the better way using the scatter diagram to show the difference of plots. The number of plot is not a continuous or categorical variable.

7. conclusions: The section is too long. Please simplify.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Although the manuscript is well written but there are some issues which need to be addressed before final consideration of the manuscript for the publication. The comments are listed here as under:

1. The abbreviations used in the abstract section should be explained as well.

2. The introduction is very long, there is a need to concise it comprehensively. As research articles have short and concise information which makes it different from book chapter or review article. 

3. The authors can discuss research questions in the discussion section, however, in introduction section focus should be on the aims and objectives of the study.

4. the methodology and results are well explained.

5. The discussion section quoting figures and other data from results which is not necessary. Just discuss your salient findings. I urge the authors to work on the discussion as well to make it more coherent.

6. Conclusion should not be more then a paragraph or two. The authors should only focus on  the outcome of the work. Rather then courting results and previously discussed things again and again. 

7. Some of the figures characters  have description in very low font which should be made enlarged to make it readable

So the conclusion must be revised and it will be good to add future suggestions to take some benefit from the study conducted and to decide future course of action to new researchers of the same field.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author

The aims of the study were twofold: (i) to compute the NDVI and with forest inventory data to model Maritime pine production, to differentiate evergreen forest cover types, and to monitor vegetation and its post-fire recovery; and (ii) to compute the NBR difference of pre-fire and post-fire dates to assess burn severity levels. An aerial coverage in 2007 and the Sentinel-2 imagery in 2020-2022 were used. Vegetation post-fire recovery was lower in higher burn severity levels’ areas. Maritime pine areas have lost their natural regeneration capability due to wildfires short cycles. Spectral indices were effective tools to assist in forests and shrubland conditions evaluation.

The author is invited to improve the introduction and discussion.

I suggest comparing this research with many more scientific works on the subject.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Algeria et al. presented a nice study though it is a localized study on Portugal. The topic is of current interest and the manuscript provides most of the required information. However, there are the following crucial points that can be considered by authors to increase the value of the manuscript and maybe readability.

- I would like to suggest that if there is a novelty in the study, please mention it in the abstract and the introduction.

- Please modify the Figure and Table Legends. These should be self-explanatory. For example, Add the name of the location/country in legends.

 

-Discussion can be more elaborated in the light of previous studies. I do believe that the manuscript can be accepted once the authors address the mentioned points thoroughly and enrich the manuscript with crucial information.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Reviewer’s comments to authors:

Title of the manuscript - “Vegetation Monitoring and Post-fire Recovery: A 17-year Case Study in the Centre Inland of Portugal"

I have reviewed the manuscript entitled “Vegetation Monitoring and Post-fire Recovery: A 17-year Case Study in the Centre Inland of Portugal”. The author computed the NDVI and with forest inventory data to model Maritime pine production, to differentiate evergreen forest cover types, and to monitor vegetation and its post-fire recovery using data of 2003, 2017, and 2020. The author also computed the NBR difference of pre-fire and post-fire dates to assess burn severity levels. Indeed there are actually few articles devoted to understanding such a problem. Thus, the article presents an interesting topic. However, I have several observations, which should answer before accept this manuscript.

There are many abbreviations in the abstract, use full form when they appear first time in the manuscript.

It is no necessary to write how many years considered for studying in the title, revise the title accordingly

Use only precise relevant keywords

It is not understand the significance of using wildfires in 2003, 2017 and 2020. Is there any reason for using the same? Generally equal intervals are used for example, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and so on. Not clearly mentioned in the methodology section.

The author mentioned in the abstract that “An aerial coverage in 2007 and the Sentinel-2 imagery in 2020-2022 were used.” Is it justified? Not clearly mentioned in the methodology section.

Introduction is too long and general. Make it precise and construct.

The latitude and longitude in all map layout is confusing. Change this into Degree, minutes, and seconds.

What is Full form of COS?

Is it relevant to use Figure 2? Need justification

Section 2.2.1 ‘Field data – forest inventory (2007)’ did you collected data in 2007 through field survey? If no, then how it is field data?

What is the significant of showing circular plot (500 m2) and sub-sample of a kernel of 20 x 20 pixels around the plot center (100 m2)? Show either one

Figure 6, very unclear.

Need construct justification on data use and time, I found there is miss match of using time data throughout the manuscript.

Properly revised the manuscript by focusing the above points

Thank you

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Accepted

Reviewer 5 Report

I have reviewed the revised paper entitled "Vegetation Monitoring and Post-fire Recovery: A 17-year Case Study in the Centre Inland of Portugal".

The authors have made required changes that I have demanded during my first review process.

So, I am accepting this paper and I think this paper is now suitable for publication.

Thank you.