Prescribed Burning under Differing Forest Cover Types and Its Influence on Soil Water Infiltration Rates and Physical Properties in East Texas Forests

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 Here are my major comments.

1. For the Introduction, the impacts of prescribed burn on soil infiltration rate are well known from literature. But the authors described "little is known" for the Western Guld Coast, even for loblolly pine in the opening sentence. It is hard to be true.

2. For the experiment design, I am not sure if there was a experimental design from the beginning because 8 plots were from National forests (2 from Davy Crockett NF, 6 from Angelina NF), 30 plots were on a Tree Farm. The differences of soil characteristics must be there but no description in the manuscript. On the tree farm there must be livestock trampling plus the tree farm often burned biannually (line 21). However, the treatments were pre-burn, post-burn (one-month after the burn, line 92) and green-up (three month after the burn line 92). Can the soil parameters be changed after one and three months? Why not collect the soil data two years after the burn as the Tree Farm prescribed burn biannually?  

3. How were the uneven distributions of sampling plots (2 in the Davy Crockett NF, 6 in the Angelina NF and 30 on the Winston 8 Land and Cattle Ltd. Tree Farm) treated while doing the ANOVA?

4. Tables 1, 2, 3, 7-10 should be presented in Appendixes.

 

Author Response

1. For the Introduction, the impacts of prescribed burn on soil infiltration rate are well known from literature. But the authors described "little is known" for the Western Guld Coast, even for loblolly pine in the opening sentence. It is hard to be true.

We believe the reviewer noted this was in the introduction, but the quoted line is in the abstract. Most studies looking at the impact of fire on soil properties have focused on wildfires, and those which have are few in the southern US, and essentially nonexistent in the west gulf coast plain region, stretching from the Mississippi River to east Texas.  we were surprised, but it is true.

2. For the experiment design, I am not sure if there was a experimental design from the beginning because 8 plots were from National forests (2 from Davy Crockett NF, 6 from Angelina NF), 30 plots were on a Tree Farm. The differences of soil characteristics must be there but no description in the manuscript.

Soil series are noted in table 2 by plot.

On the tree farm there must be livestock trampling plus the tree farm often burned biannually (line 21).

A tree farm does not mean there is livestock grazing occurring, and at the Winston 8, cattle are not on that site.

However, the treatments were pre-burn, post-burn (one-month after the burn, line 92) and green-up (three month after the burn line 92). Can the soil parameters be changed after one and three months? Why not collect the soil data two years after the burn as the Tree Farm prescribed burn biannually?  

The question you asked “Can the soil parameters be changed after one and three months?” is exactly what we wanted to investigate-does it?  As with many ecological studies, if we had unlimited time and resources we would perform this study over longer periods of time, but we had neither.

 

3. How were the uneven distributions of sampling plots (2 in the Davy Crockett NF, 6 in the Angelina NF and 30 on the Winston 8 Land and Cattle Ltd. Tree Farm) treated while doing the ANOVA?

One-way ANOVA’s were used specifically for this reason.

4. Tables 1, 2, 3, 7-10 should be presented in Appendix

We moved these to S tables, and renumbered all in text.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents the results of a specific experiment conducted by the authors in order to determine if prescribed burning has an effect on soil water infiltration rates and soil physical properties in commonly found forest soils in East Texas.

As a field experiment, this is an interesting material that brings new knowledge to the issue of changes in the physical properties of soils after fire influence. Unfortunately, the manuscript does not provide a sufficient analysis of the processes, and the interpretation of the data is concluded only by references to similar experiments with different results (see Introduction, p. 2 and Discussion, p. 18).

I would like to get responses from the authors concerning the following issues:

1. Abstract: “This study found there could be short-term responses…” and Conclusions: “Otherwise, the results found may be a short-term response to repeated burning treatments on the resilient soils found in East Texas.”

What do the authors mean by short-term reaction here? Is it possible to estimate the time of manifestation of these consequences until the full restoration of properties?

2. Page 14: “… had a significant increase from pre-bum to the other intervals (Tables 4, 5, 6, 8). Soil strength significantly decreased pre-burn to post-burn (Tables 4, 5, 6)”. I found 10 tables of extensive content in the article. However, I would prefer to see the interpretation of the received data in a chart format. This will make it easier to understanding of the results and conclusions.

3. Conclusions: “This study found an increase in soil water infiltration rate over time…” etc. I think that the authors should indicate specific estimates of the increase/decrease in the considered parameters. The corresponding calculations should be described in the text of the manuscript in the Methods section.

4. P. 4, the last paragraph: “…recorded in km cm2 at each subplot location [17].” Should be (kg сm2)?

5. Data on soil porosity in % (Pore Space (%)) in tables 4, 5, 6 are unrealistically low, while in table 7 there are values of “normal” magnitude. Please check and/or explain in the text.

6. Table 10: Soil density (0-horizon density) seems to be very underestimated (2-5 g/m3). Please check and/or explain in the text.

7. Table 10: depth (litter thickness) is given as 0.1 cm. Is this actual litter thicknesses? How was it measured? Please check and/or explain in the text.

8. Table 4 and further in tables 5, 6, 9: For me, the units of measurement for “vwc (g3)” are not clear here.

Volumetric soil water content is the volume of water per unit volume of soil.

Volumetric soil water content (%) = [volume of water (cm3)/volume of soil (cm3)] × 100.

Please check and/or explain in the text.

Author Response

The manuscript presents the results of a specific experiment conducted by the authors in order to determine if prescribed burning has an effect on soil water infiltration rates and soil physical properties in commonly found forest soils in East Texas.

As a field experiment, this is an interesting material that brings new knowledge to the issue of changes in the physical properties of soils after fire influence. Unfortunately, the manuscript does not provide a sufficient analysis of the processes, and the interpretation of the data is concluded only by references to similar experiments with different results (see Introduction, p. 2 and Discussion, p. 18).

Since this was the first such study in this region, we had no other studies to compare it to. We did point out where our results differed and were the same from other studies as were appropriate.

I would like to get responses from the authors concerning the following issues:

1. Abstract: “This study found there could be short-term responses…” and Conclusions: “Otherwise, the results found may be a short-term response to repeated burning treatments on the resilient soils found in East Texas.”

What do the authors mean by short-term reaction here? Is it possible to estimate the time of manifestation of these consequences until the full restoration of properties?

Addressed and clarified in abstract and conclusions.  However, since all we measured were 1 year sampling capturing different burn intervals, an estimation of time is not possible from our study if the reviewer is looking for a definitive number of years since last burn. In this study, the short term would be from preburn to post-burn to green-up, so just a few months.

2. Page 14: “… had a significant increase from pre-bum to the other intervals (Tables 4, 5, 6, 8). Soil strength significantly decreased pre-burn to post-burn (Tables 4, 5, 6)”. I found 10 tables of extensive content in the article. However, I would prefer to see the interpretation of the received data in a chart format. This will make it easier to understanding of the results and conclusions.

We are moving some of the tables to supplementary tables.  Due to the many variables measured and analyzed, we feel charts would not provide any more clarity than these tables, which are able to give specific numbers.

3. Conclusions: “This study found an increase in soil water infiltration rate over time…” etc. I think that the authors should indicate specific estimates of the increase/decrease in the considered parameters. The corresponding calculations should be described in the text of the manuscript in the Methods section.

We initially tried to do so, but we feel attempting to provide specific estimates based on a single years’ measurements is not justified.  The reviewer is suggesting we provide calculations-are they requesting for all variables as we did the analysis, how we got to those numbers, exactly what?  We have not seen that kind of detail provided in similar studies.

4. P. 4, the last paragraph: “…recorded in km cm2 at each subplot location [17].” Should be (kg сm2)?

Revised in text

5. Data on soil porosity in % (Pore Space (%)) in tables 4, 5, 6 are unrealistically low, while in table 7 there are values of “normal” magnitude. Please check and/or explain in the text.

Raw data was rechecked as were calculations.  We were not able to find where, if any, errors were made.

6. Table 10: Soil density (0-horizon density) seems to be very underestimated (2-5 g/m3). Please check and/or explain in the text.

We checked these data and they are correct.

7. Table 10: depth (litter thickness) is given as 0.1 cm. Is this actual litter thicknesses? How was it measured? Please check and/or explain in the text.

It is correct, and was measured in field with ruler.

8. Table 4 and further in tables 5, 6, 9: For me, the units of measurement for “vwc (g3)” are not clear here.

Volumetric soil water content is the volume of water per unit volume of soil.

Volumetric soil water content (%) = [volume of water (cm3)/volume of soil (cm3)] × 100.

Please check and/or explain in the text.

Reviewer is correct.  This was a cut and paste error on our part. Corrections made.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

It is very interesting and current article on estimation of the effects of
prescribed burning on soil water infiltration and soil physical properties.
There is a small note on the design of tables. It is necessary to check the
correspondence of sub-plot code in table 1 with sub-plot in tables 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9.

 

Author Response

It is very interesting and current article on estimation of the effects of
prescribed burning on soil water infiltration and soil physical properties.
There is a small note on the design of tables. It is necessary to check the
correspondence of sub-plot code in table 1 with sub-plot in tables 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9.

 

Reviewed and corrected as needed

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Unfortunately, the authors did not take my comments into account.

The manuscript contains no new additions or clarifications on the issues I have identified. Thus, implausible values and units of measurement remain unclear to me (See comments 5,6,7,8).

As a solution to the problem, the authors could find publications and confirm their measurements by citing other authors.

In my opinion, the manuscript could be recommended for publication in Forests after revision.

 I would like to get responses from the authors concerning the following issues:

…

5. Data on soil porosity in % (Pore Space (%)) in tables 4, 5, 6 are unrealistically low, while in table 7 there are values of “normal” magnitude. Please check and/or explain in the text.

 6. Table 10: Soil density (0-horizon density) seems to be very underestimated (2-5 g/m3). Please check and/or explain in the text.

 7. Table 10: depth (litter thickness) is given as 0.1 cm. Is this actual litter thicknesses? How was it measured? Please check and/or explain in the text.

 8. Table 4 and further in tables 5, 6, 9: For me, the units of measurement for vwc (g3) are not clear here.

Volumetric soil water content is the volume of water per unit volume of soil.

Volumetric soil water content (%) = [volume of water (cm3)/volume of soil (cm3)] × 100.

Please check and/or explain in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We are not sure the reviewer reviewed the updated document, as they referred to tables that are no longer numbered as they were in the initial draft.  They use the phrase and/or, allowing us options on how to address, and we have responded as such. Our specific responses are below.

 

Unfortunately, the authors did not take my comments into account.

The manuscript contains no new additions or clarifications on the issues I have identified. Thus, implausible values and units of measurement remain unclear to me (See comments 5,6,7,8).

Addressed below.

As a solution to the problem, the authors could find publications and confirm their measurements by citing other authors.

In my opinion, the manuscript could be recommended for publication in Forests after revision.

 I would like to get responses from the authors concerning the following issues:

…

5. Data on soil porosity in % (Pore Space (%)) in tables 4, 5, 6 are unrealistically low, while in table 7 there are values of “normal” magnitude. Please check and/or explain in the text.

Old table 4 is now table 1.  The numbers were reported incorrectly numerically, not as percentage.  These have been corrected. New table 3 are p-values, not pore space percentages.

6. Table 10: Soil density (O-horizon density) seems to be very underestimated (2-5 g/m3). Please check and/or explain in the text.

O-horizon densities were checked and are correct. Not sure what to say other than that. It would be very unusual for authors to have to explain data that have been confirmed as being correct.  Since the review suggests and/or and we confirmed the numbers, we went with the or.

7. Table 10: depth (litter thickness) is given as 0.1 cm. Is this actual litter thicknesses? How was it measured? Please check and/or explain in the text.

We did check in revision 1 and they are correct. How they were measured is in the methods section. Since the review suggests and/or and we confirmed the numbers, we went with the or.

8. Table 4 and further in tables 5, 6, 9: For me, the units of measurement for vwc (g3) are not clear here.

Volumetric soil water content is the volume of water per unit volume of soil.

Volumetric soil water content (%) = [volume of water (cm3)/volume of soil (cm3)] × 100.

Please check and/or explain in the text.

 

Our response to review round 1 to this comments was “Reviewer is correct.  This was a cut and paste error on our part. Corrections made.”

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx