UAVs Technology as a Complementary Tool in Post-Fire Vegetation Recovery Surveys in Mediterranean Fire-Prone Forests

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: UAVs Technology as a Complementary Tool in Post-Fire Vegetation Recovery Surveys in Mediterranean Fire-Prone Forests

General comment:

This paper presents an applied study of UAVs technology for the post fire vegetation recovery surveys. A maritime pine forest of Monte Pisano (northern Tuscany, Italy) was the object. The results showed that the UAV technology can well use to monitor the post-fire plant recovery process. The topic of this paper is interesting and useful, and the findings are highly valuable. The Introduction, Material and Methods are presented well. However there are several points that should be improved in order to accept this paper for publication. Further comments follow.

- In abstract, “Forest fires are a recurring and serious environmental hazard …” should be “Forest fire is a recurring and serious environmental hazard …”

- Table 1 is difficult to read. What does the symbols mean in this table?

- The font size in Fig. 4 is too small to read.

- In figure 5, the fitting result is poor. The possible reason is that other than the number of burnt pine logs, there are another factors might influence the total cover of vegetation, such as the size of pine (height, diameter of tree), the terrain and the distribution of surface fuels on the ground, etc. Therefore, it is rough to fit the relationship between total cover of vegetation and number of burnt pine logs. It is suggested to delete the fitting line.

- In conclusions, the main results obtained in this paper should be summarized, rather than listed several references. It is better to present the references before the part of Conclusions.

Author Response

Thanks for the review.

I made the required changes (in red), also in relation to those of the second reviewer, specifically:

1-  ABSTRACT : corrected the sentence in the abstract

2-  MAT & MET : tab 1 has been eliminated, following the recommendation of the second reviewer as it is present in the reported reference.

3-  RESULTS: font figure (ex) 4 now figure 5, have been adjusted

4- eliminated (ex) figure 5 as it is actually not very significant

5- CONCLUSION : shortened conclusions and references inserted into discussion.

Inserted a figure (now Figure 5) in the text from supplementary material, for an immediate vision

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript i san interesting study showing the importance of applaying UAV technology in post fire vegetation recovery. Vegetation is important for the Mediterranean area with many aspects, so its preservation and recovery after the fire is extremely important. However, I have a few doubts about this manuscript.

Abstract

- list a few key settings that would make a potential reader more interested in the whole manuscript.

Introduction

- in this chapter you should explain the importance of using UAV technology and the advantages and disadvantages in relation to empirical field research. Emphasize more clearly the importance and contribution of conducted research in theoretical and practical terms

Material and methods

 -this chapter should be shortened. Pay attention and highlight the main features in the first two subchapters (Study Area and Remote Sensing and Ground Surveys). In the Study Area Subchapter, it is recommended to remove Table 1 (line 104), as there is a literature citation.

Results

- figure 4 results are illegible, improve the presentation of ANOVA analysis by different expression with emphasis on font size.

- figure 5. the results is poor. It needs to be improved

- line 293 table S1 is not visible in the manuscript

Discussions

- this chapter needs to be significantly improved. This form of discussion is based on a description of the results. The discussion should be conceived in such a way that the results obtained try to compare with the results of some other results so far. Literary citations are required for the above.

Conclusions

- this chapter should give clear and concise conclusions. It is recommended that no references citations be made in this chapter.

References

- reference list should be enhanced

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Thanks for the review.

I made the required changes (in red), also in relation to those of the first reviewer, specifically:

1- ABSTRACT : inserted short list in the abstract

2- INTRODUCTION : the introduction was slightly implemented with a couple of sentences emphasizing the importance of the work done. As for the advantages and disadvantages of the use of the drone in forest surveys, please refer to the reported references (lines 56-67)

3- MAT & MET : I understand that the materials and methods are not short. However, I believe that, in this type of work, all the geographic, geobotanical, climatic and technical information is needed for a global understanding of the case study. Tab 1 has been removed, as you rightly pointed out to me.

4- RESULTS : fig 4 (now figure 5) has been rearranged as its relative caption

5- (ex) figure 5 has been eliminated, in accordance with the suggestions of the first auditor

6- table S1 was and is present in the supplementary material

7- DISCUSSION : I hope to have been able to implement the discussion better, adapting part of the conclusions to this one and making arguments referring to the results of others.

8-  CONCLUSIONS : the conclusions have been shortened and the references removed

9-  REFERENCES : the references have been improved

Inserted a figure (now Figure 5) in the text from supplementary material, for an immediate vision