Short-Term Effects of Prescribed Burn Seasonality on the Understory in a Pinus nigra Arnold subsp. salzmannii (Dunal) Franco Mediterranean Forest

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please refer to the revised manuscript. The paper is well-written and requires minor revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Review of Manuscript ID: fire-2486463. Title: Short-term effects of prescribed burn seasonality on the under-story in a Pinus nigra Arnold subsp. salzmannii (Dunal) Franco Mediterranean forest.

Response Editor:

Dear Ms. Stine Wang, thank you for your evaluation and for giving us the opportunity to review and improve the manuscript. We, the authors of the above article, appreciate the valuable suggestions made it. We have addressed and/ or argued all comments in the revised version.

Response Reviewers:

In the first place, indicate and thank all the reviewers for their time in reading the present manuscript and indicate suggestions and comments for its improvement. On the other hand, we will then reply to each reviewer on each described comment:

Reviewer 1:

The scale of the study is not known

Revised, we introduced better our study area and detailed the study scale.

It is better to refer to the main results of this research quantitatively

Revised

The study method is insufficient. What are the necessary sampling methods and analyses?

Revised, we detailed more the analysis of vegetation and with which methodology for that.

In the aim of the study, there was no mention of comparing the intensity of prescribed burning

We are not comparing the intensity fires of PB because all PBs were low-intensity PBs.

In addition to the suggestions, the operational and practical achievements of this study should be mentioned

Revised

If possible, provide statistics on fires and their increasing trend in these areas, especially the Mediterranean areas of southern Europe.

Revised

Reference to prove this claim

Revised

It should also be mentioned briefly about the history of using this method of reducing fuels in the study area

Revised

A more comprehensive introduction of the study area and the records of fire in it along with the introduction of fire control methods, especially prescribed fire, should be presented.

Revised, we wrote a better introduction about prescribed burnings such as preventive tools and fire control methods.

It seems that it is not a good starting point to introduce the study area

Revised

These can be moved to the first paragraph

Revised

Considering the significant change in the fire environment in the three study seasons, the duration of the fire spread is also different in the three prescribed fires, how do you consider the effect of the duration of the fire?

The effect of the duration of the fire can play a significant role in shaping the outcomes of prescribed burns. Longer durations of fire spread can result in increased heat intensity and greater combustion of organic matter, potentially leading to more pronounced changes in soil properties and microbial communities. On the other hand, shorter durations of fire may result in lower heat intensity and less extensive burning, which can limit the immediate impact on soil characteristics.

It is important to consider the duration of the fire when interpreting the study results. In our research, we focused on the ecological effects of prescribed burns carried out with a specific duration, which was in line with the prescribed burn guidelines and aimed at achieving desired management objectives. By conducting prescribed burns within a defined duration, we aimed to control the fire behavior and minimize potential negative impacts on the ecosystem.

Only the season was different in each PB, but de conditions were similar, and the phases and methodology applied. The duration of the fire and the residents of temperatures were similar, so we considered the effects of PBs.

it is not clear

Revised. Based on our study, we found that there were no significant differences in the effects of prescribed burns among the different seasons, despite variations in meteorological conditions. The behavior of the fire, including fire spread and fire intensity, was similar across all three seasons.

Although the weather conditions varied among the seasons, with differences in temperature, humidity, and fuel moisture content, the overall impact on the soil and other ecological factors was comparable. This suggests that the duration and severity of the prescribed burns were consistent regardless of the season in which they were conducted.

The conclusion must state the most important outcome of your work. Do not simply summarize the points already made in the body — instead, interpret your findings at a higher level of abstraction.

Revised

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments to authors about the ms entitled “Short-term effects of prescribed burn seasonality on the under- story in a Pinus nigra Arnold subsp. salzmannii (Dunal) Franco Mediterranean forest”, by A. Fajardo-Cantos,  D . Moya, et al. submitted to Fire.

This ms deals with the effects of prescribed burns carried out at different seasons (spring, summer, and fall), on the early successional responses (one year after low intensity prescribed burns) of different understory plant species grown in a Pinus nigra Mediterranean forest.  The ms is clear and well written.  Some suggestions of changes, however are written down below.  The only concern that I have is that the authors should clearly state that the results presented, as were taken only one year after the burns, should be carefully used to determine and propose long term management objectives. This is so because as succession proceeds, the community attributes may change and the results different as those registered just one year after succession.  It could be extremely important to understand the functioning of this community after this seasonally different PB treatments, to follow what happens with the parameters of the community measured 5, 10, or 20 years after the treatments.   It is well known in ecology of vegetation communities after a particular disturbance (fire applied at different seasons in this case), that not always follows the same pattern beyond the first year of observation. The authors should then clearly state this, and include this issue in the discussion section.

Reviewer suggestions of change

Introduction

In general, the introduction is Ok and it is easy to read and follow.  However, there are some comments and suggestions the authors should pay attention to.

Line 39: the citation numbered as [6] may not be appropriate here since that paper refers to grasslands and shrublands, and not directly to forests.  Change to other more appropriate citation.

Lines 41 to 43: specify that these projections are only for the Mediterranean zone.  This statement, as it was written, creates confusion.  Rewrite appropriately.  

Material and Methods

This section is well written and the only question I may have is why the PB were conducted in different years?.  Is there an appropriate justification for having doing that? The authors stated that precipitation was somewhat similar during the years the PG were conducted, and that the data were taken for each treatment one year after PB.  What about other microclimate factors such as temperatures during the early postfire recovery period when the measurements were made?  

Line 204: Strategies against fires? or strategies of adaptation to fires?  Correct.

Line 212: Statistical Analysis should be Statistical Analyses (plural)

Results

The result section is Ok and well presented in a clear and orderly way.

Discussion.

I think that in the discussion section, the authors must include the limitations of this study in the way that the results presented are just for one year after the PB.  What would happen afterwards as succession proceed is an important point that should be discussed in this section, and not only mention it in the conclusion section.  The findings with regard to actual life form coverage, diversity, fire adaptation and other possible community changes that operate later in other seral stages caused by other community attributes (competition, light availability as plants grow, etc.)  should be at least mentioned or discussed and propose or hypothesize if the differences found due to PB seasonality would remain as succession progresses.

Author Response

Review of Manuscript ID: fire-2486463. Title: Short-term effects of prescribed burn seasonality on the under-story in a Pinus nigra Arnold subsp. salzmannii (Dunal) Franco Mediterranean forest.

Response Editor:

Dear Ms. Stine Wang, thank you for your evaluation and for giving us the opportunity to review and improve the manuscript. We, the authors of the above article, appreciate the valuable suggestions made it. We have addressed and/ or argued all comments in the revised version.

Response Reviewers:

In the first place, indicate and thank all the reviewers for their time in reading the present manuscript and indicate suggestions and comments for its improvement. On the other hand, we will then reply to each reviewer on each described comment:

Reviewer 2:

Comments to authors about the ms entitled “Short-term effects of prescribed burn seasonality on the under- story in a Pinus nigra Arnold subsp. salzmannii (Dunal) Franco Mediterranean forest”, by A. Fajardo-Cantos,  D . Moya, et al. submitted to Fire.

This ms deals with the effects of prescribed burns carried out at different seasons (spring, summer, and fall), on the early successional responses (one year after low intensity prescribed burns) of different understory plant species grown in a Pinus nigra Mediterranean forest.  The ms is clear and well written.  Some suggestions of changes, however are written down below.  The only concern that I have is that the authors should clearly state that the results presented, as were taken only one year after the burns, should be carefully used to determine and propose long term management objectives. This is so because as succession proceeds, the community attributes may change and the results different as those registered just one year after succession.  It could be extremely important to understand the functioning of this community after this seasonally different PB treatments, to follow what happens with the parameters of the community measured 5, 10, or 20 years after the treatments.   It is well known in ecology of vegetation communities after a particular disturbance (fire applied at different seasons in this case), that not always follows the same pattern beyond the first year of observation. The authors should then clearly state this, and include this issue in the discussion section.

Thank you for your valuable feedback and suggestions. We appreciate your insightful comments regarding the interpretation of our results in the context of long-term management objectives. We agree that the dynamics of vegetation communities can evolve over time, and the community attributes may exhibit different patterns beyond the initial year of observation. In our study, we focused on examining the short-term effects of the prescribed burns, and we acknowledge the importance of considering longer-term monitoring to capture the full trajectory of community responses. Considering your comment, we will explicitly state in the manuscript that our results are based on a one-year post-burn assessment and caution against extrapolating these findings to long-term management decisions. We will emphasize the need for continued research to understand the long-term functioning and trajectories of the studied vegetation community after different seasonal prescribed burn treatments. This will provide a more comprehensive understanding of ecological dynamics and valuable insights for guiding management strategies over extended timeframes. We appreciate your suggestion to include this issue in the discussion section, and we will ensure that we address the potential limitations of our study and the importance of long-term monitoring in assessing community changes beyond the first year of succession. Your input will strengthen the clarity and interpretation of our findings, and we are grateful for the opportunity to enhance the scientific robustness of our work.

Reviewer suggestions of change

Introduction

In general, the introduction is Ok and it is easy to read and follow.  However, there are some comments and suggestions the authors should pay attention to.

Line 39: the citation numbered as [6] may not be appropriate here since that paper refers to grasslands and shrublands, and not directly to forests.  Change to other more appropriate citation.

Revised

Lines 41 to 43: specify that these projections are only for the Mediterranean zone.  This statement, as it was written, creates confusion.  Rewrite appropriately.  

Revised

Material and Methods

This section is well written and the only question I may have is why the PB were conducted in different years?.  Is there an appropriate justification for having doing that? The authors stated that precipitation was somewhat similar during the years the PG were conducted, and that the data were taken for each treatment one year after PB.  What about other microclimate factors such as temperatures during the early postfire recovery period when the measurements were made?  

Revised: The prescribed burns (PB) were conducted in different years due to the limited and specific weather windows required for carrying out the burns safely. These prescribed burns were carried out by the regional government as part of their management practices. Although the precipitation levels were somewhat similar during the years when the prescribed burns took place, we acknowledge that other microclimate factors, such as temperatures during the early post-fire recovery period when the measurements were made, could have influenced the results. In our study, we provide additional information on the historical climate trends, including post-fire temperature evolution, as shown in the Annex (ANNEX, S3), which demonstrates a similar trend.

Line 204: Strategies against fires? or strategies of adaptation to fires?  Correct.

Revised

Line 212: Statistical Analysis should be Statistical Analyses (plural)

Revised

Results

The result section is Ok and well presented in a clear and orderly way.

Discussion.

I think that in the discussion section, the authors must include the limitations of this study in the way that the results presented are just for one year after the PB.  What would happen afterwards as succession proceed is an important point that should be discussed in this section, and not only mention it in the conclusion section.  The findings with regard to actual life form coverage, diversity, fire adaptation and other possible community changes that operate later in other seral stages caused by other community attributes (competition, light availability as plants grow, etc.)  should be at least mentioned or discussed and propose or hypothesize if the differences found due to PB seasonality would remain as succession progresses.

Revised. We acknowledge the importance of discussing the limitations of our study in the discussion section. We will specifically address the fact that the results presented only represent one year after the prescribed burns (PB) and the need for further investigation to understand the long-term effects of succession on community attributes, such as life form coverage, diversity, and fire adaptation. We will also hypothesize and discuss the potential changes that may occur in later seral stages due to factors like competition and light availability as plants grow. By incorporating these points, we aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the implications of PB seasonality and its potential long-term effects on vegetation dynamics.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please, see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Review of Manuscript ID: fire-2486463. Title: Short-term effects of prescribed burn seasonality on the under-story in a Pinus nigra Arnold subsp. salzmannii (Dunal) Franco Mediterranean forest.

Response Editor:

Dear Ms. Stine Wang, thank you for your evaluation and for giving us the opportunity to review and improve the manuscript. We, the authors of the above article, appreciate the valuable suggestions made it. We have addressed and/ or argued all comments in the revised version.

Response Reviewers:

In the first place, indicate and thank all the reviewers for their time in reading the present manuscript and indicate suggestions and comments for its improvement. On the other hand, we will then reply to each reviewer on each described comment:

Reviewer 3:

The manuscript analyzes the understory recovery after one year of prescribed burns implemented at different seasons. This is a relevant topic in the current scenario of climate change and the projections of increased fire risk, due to the contribution of prescribed burn to reduce fuel loads. However, prescribed burn seasonality may drive different effects on ecosystems processes and functions that are important to assess in order to contribute to management guidelines. Although the study area is small and it is important that the authors consider this limitation in the discussion (being careful not to extrapolate the results to other areas), I consider that the information obtained is very valuable. However, the ms needs to be improved in several aspects. Since the main contribution of this study is to compare the short-term effects of prescribed burn seasonality, I would expect the focus to be mainly on this aspect: In the introduction I would expect arguments about why the vegetation might respond differently to the different burning seasons, in what characteristics of the plant community and/or plants traits those differences would be noticeable?; I would expect more precise hypotheses or questions, and that the discussion gives possible explanations for the results found. In the current version of the ms it is stated that summer burning will have a greater impact, but there is no explanation why this would be expected. The materials and methods section could be strengthened both in the sampling explanation as well as in the data analysis, where many important details are missing such as the moment of vegetation sampling. Results need to be better align with the questions/aims and the methods. Discussion section needs reorder and more explanatory content, for example, you should start with the main results regarding the burning seasonality differences you found, and you should consider other possible explanations for your findings, for example, the physiological differences of the plants throughout the growing season (i.e. the amount of reserves in the resprouting plants will not be the same at the beginning of the growing season than in the middle or at the end – See for example Robertson K. M. & Hmielowski T. L. (2014) Effects of fire frequency and season on resprouting of woody plants in southeastern US pine-grassland communities. Oecologia 174, 765–776). I hope you find these suggestions useful to increase the interest of your work. Following I stated specific suggestions for you to consider:

We appreciate the reviewer's feedback and suggestions. In response to their comments, we will revise the introduction of our study to provide a more comprehensive argument regarding the potential differences in vegetation responses to different burn seasons. We will discuss the underlying factors that can influence plant community dynamics, such as variations in temperature, moisture availability, and plant functional traits. For example, previous research has shown that summer burns may result in higher fire intensity due to drier conditions and increased fuel load, potentially leading to more pronounced effects on vegetation (Stevens et al., 2021). We will also develop specific hypotheses and research questions regarding the potential differences in community composition, species diversity, and plant functional traits among the different burn seasons. Additionally, in the discussion section, we will provide possible explanations for the observed results, considering the influence of microclimatic conditions, post-fire regeneration strategies, and competitive interactions within the plant community (Thomsen & Ooj, 2022; Castro & Leverkus, 2019). By addressing these points, we aim to enhance the clarity and scientific rigor of our study, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the effects of burn seasonality on vegetation responses.

References:

- J.T. Stevens, C.M. Haffey, J.D. Coop, P.J. Fornwalt, L. Yocom, C.D. Allen, A. Bradley, O.T. Burney, D. Carril, M.E. Chambers, T.B. Chapman, S.L. Haire, M.D. Hurteau, J.M. Iniguez, E.Q. Margolis, C. Marks, L.A.E. Marshall, K.C. Rodman, C.S. Stevens-Rumann, A.E. Thode, J.J. Walker, Tamm Review: Postfire landscape management in frequent-fire conifer forests of the southwestern United States, Forest Ecology and Management. 502 (2021) 119678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119678.

- Thomsen, A. M., & Ooi, M. K. J. (2022). Shifting season of fire and its interaction with fire severity: Impacts on reproductive effort in resprouting plants. Ecology and Evolution, 12, e8717. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8717

- Castro, J.; Leverkus, A.B. Effect of Herbaceous Layer Interference on the Post-Fire Regeneration of a Serotinous Pine (Pinus pinaster Aiton) across Two Seedling Ages. Forests 2019, 10, 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10010074

Abstract:

- Line 13: delete “Aims”

Revised

- Line 22: delete “Implications”

Revised

- Line 22: change “Indicating..” to “This suggests…”

Revised

- Lines 25-26: I don’t see the connection of this recommendation with this study. I would expect a concluding sentence obtained from your results. It could be a general recommendation for seasonality burning.

Revised, we included future research.

Introduction:

- Lines 41-43: Is this general or for the Mediterranean Basin? Please, clarify.

Revised

- I suggest to include the specific objectives, and then align the methods and results to them.

Revised

- I would expect more precise hypotheses. They should specify the direction of change and the justification of such change.

Revised

- It is necessary more information in the introduction that justify the hypotheses and the results that are expected. Why the vegetation might respond differently to the different burning seasons? In what characteristics of the plant community and/or plants traits those differences would be noticeable?

Revised. We have included the relevance of the seasons in how prescribed burns would affect plant communities, due to humidity, temperatures, as well as the subsequent regeneration of burned vegetation, either due to periods of drought or water stress, or on the contrary, soil loss due to torrential rains, losing nutrients and rapid regeneration capacity.

Materials and Methods:

- Figure 1. Burning dates do not match with the text. Please, revise it.

Revised

- Figure 2 is mentioned in the text, but it is missing.

Revised

- When did you sample vegetation? In line 128 you mentioned “one year after each PB”, would it be spring 2017 for spring burning, autumn 2019 for autumn burning, and summer 2021 for summer burning? Please, clarify. It would not be the same if you sample vegetation at the beginning, middle or end of the growing season, and that might be influencing your results.

Revised. It was wanted to indicate that the vegetation measurements were after one year of each burn, being the burns 2016,2017 and 2019 and therefore the vegetation measurements, in its growth phase (spring-summer) being these measurements in 2017, 2018 and 2020.

- section 1.3: I wonder if each prescribed burn took place in each 30m2 plot or in bigger plots.

Revised. We added that prescribed burns were carried out in areas covering no more than 0.1 ha as forest management practices by Regional Forest Service personnel in accordance with a regional prescribed burning plan.

- Please, consider presenting the data from each prescribed burn in a table (sections 2.3.1, 2.3.2, and 2.3.3). I think it will be better appreciated. Also, as your aim is to compare burning seasons and not different years, it is better if you present the results (alingning the aims, methods and discussion) in a sucession of seasons (i.e spring, summer and autumn), instead of a chronological way.

Revised. We changed the text toa global table

- Line 193. I’m confused, were each plot of 30m2 or 30x30m (that would be 900m2)? Consider changing “… of the corner.” by “...of the border.” or similar.

Revised, there were plots of 30x30m.

- How did you identify species and classify plant strategies and life forms? Did you use some specific references or databases?

In our study, we identified species and classified plant strategies and life forms using a combination of methods. The primary reference we relied on was the "Flora Iberica" book, which provides comprehensive information on the flora of the Iberian Peninsula. We also consulted other authoritative botanical references, scientific articles, and databases to ensure accurate species identification and classification. These sources include the "Plants of the World Online" database and relevant scientific literature on plant strategies and life forms. By utilizing these references and databases, we aimed to ensure the reliability and accuracy of our plant identification and classification procedures.

Some References:

(https://plants.usda.gov/home)

aula, S. and Pausas, J.G. (2008), Burning seeds: germinative response to heat treatments in relation to resprouting ability. Journal of Ecology, 96: 543-552. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01359.x

Lucas-Borja, M.E., Candel-Pérez, D., García Morote, F.A. et al. Pinus nigra Arn. ssp. salzmannii seedling recruitment is affected by stand basal area, shrub cover and climate interactions. Annals of Forest Science 73, 649–656 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-016-0550-9

10. Peñuelas y J. Sardans, «Global Change and Forest Disturbances in the Mediterranean Basin: Breakthroughs, Knowledge Gaps, and Recommendations», Forests, vol. 12, n.º 5, Art. n.º 5, may 2021, doi: 10.3390/f12050603.

- Why did you choose Shannon, Pielou and Simpson indices among all the existing diversity indices?

We selected the Shannon, Pielou, and Simpson diversity indices based on their widely recognized and established use in ecological research. These indices are commonly employed to assess species diversity in various ecosystems and have been extensively applied in studies examining the effects of disturbances such as prescribed burns. Their suitability for our study lies in their ability to capture different aspects of diversity, including species richness and evenness, which are important indicators of ecological community dynamics. Additionally, these indices have been widely reported in the scientific literature and are well understood and accepted by the ecological research community. Hence, we deemed them appropriate and relevant for evaluating and comparing species diversity in the context of our study.

 

References:

Krebs, C.J. (2009) Ecology: The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance. Pearson Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco.

Magurran, A.E. (2004) Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 256 p.

- Lines 217-218 Please, check this statement: “999 replicates were permutations, applied to assess the significance values at a significance level at p= 0.05.” It is confusing.

Revised

- Lines 233-235. Please, add more details about the ANOVA’s you performed. Which were the response variables? How did you corroborate the normality and homocedasticity assumptions?

Revised.

Results:

- The analysis of precipitation is an objective of this study? If so, it should be stated as an objective/question in the introduction, and it will be better if it is in a separated subsection in the results. If it is important for the study, but it is not an objective, it should be only stated in the methodology, as you did with the soil characterization. Figure 2 is missing.

Revised and added to the annexes, it only tries, as well as the characterization of the area, to detail the temperatures and precipitations during the study period.

- Please, check that you always follow the same order of presentation, from the order of objectives in the introduction, following the same order in the methods, results, and discussion. This way it is easier for the reader to follow the study.

Revised

- Maybe it is not necessary to include the results in table 1, and just mention them in the text.

Revised. Table 1, now table 2, we believe is visual and explanatory when looking at comparisons in plant communities at the time of similarities and dissimilarities, as it appears in other papers (Example: - Ürker O, Tavsanoglu Ç, Gürkan B (2018). Post-fire recovery of the plant community in Pinus brutia forests: active vs. indirect restoration techniques after salvage logging. iForest 11: 635-642. - doi: 10.3832/ifor2645-011 or - P. G. Alizoti, K. Kilimis, y P. Gallios, «Temporal and spatial variation of flowering among Pinus nigra Arn. clones under changing climatic conditions», Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 259, n.º 4, pp. 786-797, feb. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.06.029).

- NMDS is a graphic display for ANOSIM results, I wonder how you obtained the three groups presented in the NMDS.

The three groups presented in the NMDS plot were obtained through the ordination of the data using the Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS) technique. NMDS is a method commonly used to visualize and compare similarities or dissimilarities between samples based on their ecological attributes. In our study, the NMDS analysis was performed using the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity index, which considers the abundance and composition of species in each sample. The resulting NMDS plot illustrates the clustering of samples into distinct groups based on their ecological similarities.

- Line 258: Bromus erectus is a shrub?

Revised, we had a couple of errors in the writing regarding the species, indicating that it is a shrub when it is a grass.

- Please, check the journal instructions. Horizontal lines in tables are usually not recommended.

Revised

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The research “Short-term effects of prescribed burn seasonality on the understory in a Pinus nigra Arnold subsp. salzmannii (Dunal) Franco Mediterranean forest”, sought to evaluate the effect of prescribed burning in a Mediterranean black pine forest in Spain. The research has a representative database, used an already consolidated statistical analysis, in addition to having a good structure and references. Despite this, the research could be adjusted with some expansions of the discussions, to make it a benchmark for other types of vegetation and biome, in addition to including topics that have not been explored as for example:

Little was related about environmental/climatic patterns with the results found.

The discussions did not provide an evident connection between the post-fire diversity data and the practical benefits of prescribed burning. It is suggested that topic 4.2. be expanded with this theme, in addition to addressing the benefits of the research for the integrated environmental management of the region.

Author Response

Review of Manuscript ID: fire-2486463. Title: Short-term effects of prescribed burn seasonality on the under-story in a Pinus nigra Arnold subsp. salzmannii (Dunal) Franco Mediterranean forest.

Response Editor:

Dear Ms. Stine Wang, thank you for your evaluation and for giving us the opportunity to review and improve the manuscript. We, the authors of the above article, appreciate the valuable suggestions made it. We have addressed and/ or argued all comments in the revised version.

Response Reviewers:

In the first place, indicate and thank all the reviewers for their time in reading the present manuscript and indicate suggestions and comments for its improvement. On the other hand, we will then reply to each reviewer on each described comment:

 

Reviewer 4:

 

The research “Short-term effects of prescribed burn seasonality on the understory in a Pinus nigra Arnold subsp. salzmannii (Dunal) Franco Mediterranean forest”, sought to evaluate the effect of prescribed burning in a Mediterranean black pine forest in Spain. The research has a representative database, used an already consolidated statistical analysis, in addition to having a good structure and references. Despite this, the research could be adjusted with some expansions of the discussions, to make it a benchmark for other types of vegetation and biome, in addition to including topics that have not been explored as for example:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your suggestions regarding the connection between the post-fire diversity data and the practical benefits of prescribed burning. In response, we will expand section 4.2 to provide a more explicit link between our findings and the integrated environmental management of the region. Specifically, we will highlight the ecological significance of the observed diversity patterns and discuss how this information can inform effective management strategies, such as enhancing habitat restoration and promoting fire-adapted vegetation. By addressing this aspect, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the practical implications of our research for sustainable environmental management in the region.

Little was related about environmental/climatic patterns with the results found.

Revised.

The discussions did not provide an evident connection between the post-fire diversity data and the practical benefits of prescribed burning. It is suggested that topic 4.2. be expanded with this theme, in addition to addressing the benefits of the research for the integrated environmental management of the region.

Revised. In addition to adding another section, we have added a clear relationship between the evolution of the climate in the study area with the observed results, especially with the life forms.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Please, see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Review of Manuscript ID: fire-2486463. Title: Short-term effects of prescribed burn seasonality on the under-story in a Pinus nigra Arnold subsp. salzmannii (Dunal) Franco Mediterranean forest.

Response Editor:

Dear Ms. Stine Wang, thank you for your evaluation and for giving us the opportunity to review and improve the manuscript. We, the authors of the above article, appreciate the valuable suggestions made it. We have addressed and/ or argued all comments in the revised version.

Response Reviewers:

In the first place, indicate and thank all the reviewers for their time in reading the present manuscript and indicate suggestions and comments for its improvement. On the other hand, we will then reply to each reviewer on each described comment:

Reviewer 3º:

The authors worked on many of the reviewers suggestions. However, some aspects still need consideration. Part of my first review wasn’t considered by the authors, so I copied it here for their consideration.

I understand that the review time may be limited, but please be more careful with the details. For example, many citations do not seem to coincide in the topic of what they are referring to. I would think that you did not update it since the references go up to citation number 69. Some details were revised, but not throughout the ms, such as the plot size. Although English is not my mother tongue, I find some parts of the text confusing, for example the sentence in lines 139-141. I suggest a more careful revision of the redaction and English translation.

Thank you for your feedback and valuable suggestions. We apologize for any oversight in addressing some aspects of your initial review. We have carefully considered your comments and have made efforts to improve the manuscript accordingly. Regarding the citations, we acknowledge that some inconsistencies exist, and we will conduct a thorough review to ensure the references align correctly with the corresponding content. Additionally, we will update the references to include more recent studies up to the present time. We appreciate your attention to detail and will diligently review the entire manuscript to ensure a consistent plot size throughout the document. Furthermore, we will pay special attention to the redaction and English translation to enhance the clarity and coherence of the text.

Abstract

Line 19: Consider deteling the cite (Canfield, 1942). It is not common to use cites in the abstracts but if you use it, it has to be relevant and appropriately used following the journal requeriments. The transect method is a usual methodology so I think it is better if you exclude it.

Revised

Line 33: Change “...season. And…” to “season, and…”

Revised

Introduction

Lines 119-212: Please, specify which are those different responses to season burning. At least the most relevant or the ones you want to highlight because they are relevant for what you expected. Also, check the references because what you cited did not appear to correspond with the statement.

Revised, we have revisited our findings and identified the most relevant and significant responses of vegetation to seasonal burning. Specifically, our study highlights the substantial increase in resprouting species, such as hemicryptophytes and geophytes, following low-intensity prescribed burns. Additionally, we observed a decrease in overall plant diversity due to the short-term impact of low-intensity burning, which is consistent with previous studies on fire effects in similar ecosystems. To address the discrepancy in the references, we have conducted a thorough review and ensured that the citations align accurately with the corresponding statements in the text. The updated references now support and strengthen our statements regarding the vegetation responses to seasonal burning.

Lines 132-134: the hypothesis still need more justification. What do you mean by “changes in plant phenology”? Be more specific about the influence of burn seasonality on plant growth and survival. Also here, the cites 40-42 did not appear to correspond with the statement.

Revised, we have provided further justification and clarification for our hypotheses regarding the influence of burn seasonality on plant phenology, growth, and survival. Specifically, we propose that burn seasonality affects plant growth and survival through alterations in key ecological processes such as seed germination, bud burst, flowering, and seedling establishment. These changes in plant phenology are crucial in determining the success and resilience of plant communities following prescribed burns. To address the concern regarding the citations, we have carefully reviewed the text and made necessary adjustments to ensure that the references (cites 40-42) accurately correspond to the statements supporting the influence of burn seasonality on plant growth and survival.

Line 139-141: What do you mean by “… due to lack of thermal-shock burning…” All this sentence is confusing. Please, revise.

Revised, we apologize for the confusion in the sentence. We will revise the sentence to provide more clarity and make the meaning explicit.

Lines 146-148: This paragraph should be in the discussion section.

Revised.

Materials and Methods

You deleted the mention of figure 2 in the text, but now you should change the numbers of the other figures. Figure 3 should be Figure 2, and so on.

Revised. Thank you for pointing that out. You are correct, I apologize for the oversight. I have made the necessary changes, and now Figure 2 corresponds to the correct figure in the text. The other figures have also been renumbered accordingly.

Line 180: Still says “30 m²” when you responded to me that each plot was 30 x 30 m. Revise.

Revised. I apologize for the confusion. You are right, each plot was indeed 30 x 30 meters, resulting in an area of 900 m². I have updated the manuscript to reflect the correct plot size. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I appreciate your careful review of the article.

Lines 185-187: It is more clear but it is still confusing. Intead of “One year afer each PB” you could say “The following growing season after PB” or similar.

Revised.

Table 1. If the journal allows it, I suggest reducing the letter size and the cell margins to make it easier to read.

Thank you for your feedback. I understand your suggestion to reduce the letter size and cell margins to improve readability. However, I would like to clarify that the journal requires a specific format and provides a template for authors to follow. The current layout adheres to the journal's guidelines, and any modifications to the font size or margins might result in non-compliance with the required format. But, I tried to improve the format for better readability.

Lines 243-244: I wonder if the citations 59 and 31 would refer to the references you added in the response to my question in the first review.

Revised, indeed we referred to add bibliography of database, we have cited some of the documents that contain different databases to identify vegetation, among many other libraries.

Lines 252-254. It is OK, but this needs to be linked to the ANOVA analysis, that it is mentioned at the end of the section.

Thank you for the reviewer's feedback. I apologize for the oversight. To address this concern, I will make sure to include a clear and concise explanation of how the ANOVA analysis is linked to the preceding text in the section. Specifically, I will emphasize how the ANOVA analysis complements and supports the findings obtained from the ANOSIM analysis.

I will reorganize the paragraph to create a logical flow, where the ANOVA analysis is introduced as a follow-up to the ANOSIM analysis, providing further insights into the significant differences observed in the vegetation data between the burned and control plots for each season.

 

Regarding NMDS, maybe I was not clear with my question. In NMDS objects that are more similar to one another are ordinated closer together, as you also mentioned. It is possible to also graph the confidence ellipses of groups determined by yourself, for example you may want to graph the confidence ellipse for each burning season. If you are using some function to cluster in NMDS I suggest you to specify it in the materials and methods section, since it is not the most common use of NMDS as far as I know.

Revised, we appreciate the suggestion to include confidence ellipses for the groups determined by burning season in the NMDS analysis. However, the ANOSIM results suggested that the communities between the burning seasons were relatively similar, and therefore, we believe that displaying confidence ellipses for each burning season would not provide additional meaningful information in this particular case. Regarding the clustering of the NMDS analysis, we used the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity index to calculate the distance between the data points and performed hierarchical clustering to determine the grouping of the samples.

I’m copying here the comments I had from my first review for you to consider. Lines are refered to the first version of the ms:

Results

- Why did you only mention the first three species that contributed the most in the SIMPER results? How was your criterion?

We appreciate the feedback and will provide further clarification regarding the selection of species mentioned in the SIMPER results. Due to space limitations and the focus on the most influential species, we initially highlighted the first three species that contributed the most to the dissimilarity between prescribed burnings. However, we acknowledge the importance of transparency and completeness in reporting our findings.

 

To address this concern, we will revise the Methodology section to include a concise statement stating that the first three species were mentioned based on their higher contribution to dissimilarity, while the remaining species, each contributing less than 3%-5%, will be made available in the supplementary material as a downloadable dataset in the ANNEX. By doing so, we aim to provide a more comprehensive and transparent presentation of the results, accommodating both the space constraints of the main text and the reviewer's request for additional information.

Discussion

- Lines 339-344 I would not mention this first in the discussion section. Discussions are more interesting if they start with the main focus of the study. I suggest starting the discussion section with you main findings regarding burning season.

Revised

- Lines 375-378. I don’t understand this explanation. The lowest value of J for the summer burning means that this treatment had the lowest equitativity. This could be because maybe one or few species predominated after fire or because many species were affected and could not recover their cover after a year. I would expect a reason why this happened in the summer burning and not in the autumn or spring burnings. Besides, I wonder why Simpson index took lower values for prescribed burns. Since it is an index based on dominance, it’s value is inverse to equitativity, whereas Pielou and Shannon are indices based on equitativity. I would expect that the treatments with the lowest Shannon and Pielou values would take the highest Simpson values.

The lower Simpson index values for prescribed burns may be attributed to factors such as increased dominance of certain species or reduced recovery of other species after the fire event. This dominance may be influenced by specific fire seasonality, fire intensity, and the post-fire recovery dynamics of the vegetation community. Moreover, the influence of fire-adapted traits in response to different burn seasons should be considered, as fire-adapted species tend to thrive in post-fire environments.

Furthermore, the differences between Shannon, Pielou, and Simpson indices can provide insights into the community structure and equitability. While Shannon and Pielou indices emphasize equitability and evenness, the Simpson index is inversely related to equitability and highlights dominance. These differences can be indicative of varying disturbance impacts and community responses to prescribed burns.

For instance, the lower Simpson index values for prescribed burns may be influenced by factors such as changes in species dominance due to post-fire succession or the response of certain species to the specific fire regime. To gain a comprehensive understanding, it is essential to consider multiple factors that influence diversity patterns, including fire intensity, microclimate variations, soil nutrient availability, and interspecific interactions. By analyzing these aspects, we can develop a more holistic interpretation of the observed results and their ecological implications.

- Lines 394-397, why did you relate the increment of hemicryptophytes in the autumn and summer seasons to local microclimate conditions and biotic processes, such as soil-plant interactions triggered by ash deposition and nutrient input? Which could be the reason that this is not happening for the spring burning?

Revised, the difference in the response of hemicryptophytes to prescribed burns in different seasons may indeed be attributed to several factors. In our study, we hypothesize that the increment of hemicryptophytes in the autumn and summer seasons is likely influenced by specific local microclimate conditions and biotic processes, such as soil-plant interactions triggered by ash deposition and nutrient input. However, the absence of a similar response in the spring burning season could be due to several reasons. One possibility is that the timing of the spring burn may not coincide with the optimal conditions for hemicryptophyte growth and establishment. Additionally, spring-burning may result in different ecological conditions compared to the other seasons, affecting hemicryptophyte responses differently. It is also important to consider that the composition and abundance of hemicryptophyte species may vary across seasons, which could influence their response to fire events. We have also added a couple of lines commenting on it in the discussion.

To provide a more comprehensive understanding, further research is needed to explore the specific mechanisms driving the differential response of hemicryptophytes to prescribed burns in different seasons. Factors such as soil moisture, temperature, and nutrient availability may vary across seasons and play a role in shaping the plant community response. Investigating these aspects will enable us to unravel the underlying ecological processes influencing hemicryptophyte dynamics and their response to fire events in different burn seasons.

- Since your study is focused on burning seasons, I suggest you to consider physiological differences of the plants throughout the growing season as possible explanations for your results.

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We appreciate the reviewer's insight and agree that considering physiological differences of the plants throughout the growing season could provide valuable insights into our study's results. Exploring the seasonal variation in plant physiological responses, such as photosynthetic activity, water use efficiency, and nutrient uptake, may help us better understand the mechanisms underlying the observed differences in vegetation response to different burning seasons. We will incorporate this aspect into our discussion and analysis to provide a more comprehensive interpretation of the ecological implications of prescribed burning.

- It would be interesting if you state some recommendations for the management guidelines obtained from your results.

Revised Thank you very much for the review and the annotations, we have added a few brief lines in the discussion some management guidelines.

Reviewer 4º:

The authors have revised all points suggested by this reviewer, so I have no further comments and suggest approval of the text.

Thank you for your thorough review and positive feedback. We appreciate your valuable insights and suggestions, which have helped us improve the quality of our manuscript. We are pleased to hear that you have no further comments and recommend approval of the text. Your support is instrumental in advancing the scientific contribution of this work.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have revised all points suggested by this reviewer, so I have no further comments and suggest approval of the text.

Author Response

Review of Manuscript ID: fire-2486463. Title: Short-term effects of prescribed burn seasonality on the under-story in a Pinus nigra Arnold subsp. salzmannii (Dunal) Franco Mediterranean forest.

Response Editor:

Dear Ms. Stine Wang, thank you for your evaluation and for giving us the opportunity to review and improve the manuscript. We, the authors of the above article, appreciate the valuable suggestions made it. We have addressed and/ or argued all comments in the revised version.

Response Reviewers:

In the first place, indicate and thank all the reviewers for their time in reading the present manuscript and indicate suggestions and comments for its improvement. On the other hand, we will then reply to each reviewer on each described comment:

Reviewer 4º:

The authors have revised all points suggested by this reviewer, so I have no further comments and suggest approval of the text.

Thank you for your thorough review and positive feedback. We appreciate your valuable insights and suggestions, which have helped us improve the quality of our manuscript. We are pleased to hear that you have no further comments and recommend approval of the text. Your support is instrumental in advancing the scientific contribution of this work.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx