Chronic Exclusion of Fire in Longleaf Pine Stands of an Urban Interface: The University of West Florida Campus Ecosystem Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper describes a local study on long leaf pine community structure on and nearby a college campus. It is not a typical hypothesis driven study which makes evaluation a bit tricky. The presentation is clear and straightforward and I don't have technical suggestions for improvement. I do wonder who will be interested in the paper based on how it is framed. I think "urban" ecosystems are understudied and stronger framing of the work in this domain would make it attractive to a broader audience. Or frame the work and results in the context of urban ecology education but that would only work if the author had designed the study for that purpose with data on students.
L 38 please mention/add tipup mounds and how they would influence biodiversity
L180 measures of goodness of fit needed for the age-dbh model
Author Response
I appreciate the positive words regarding this manuscript, as well as suggestions for improvement:
L 38 please mention/add tipup mounds and how they would influence biodiversity
This has been added with appropriate citations.
L180 measures of goodness of fit needed for the age-dbh model
r2 and P values have been added
Reviewer 2 Report
Introduction
Line 26 – The sentence I believe is supposed to incorporate surface fire and tropical cyclones. It does not sense as currently written.
General Comment – Is it necessary to discuss cyclones or the phenomenological model in the first paragraph of this manuscript? I suggest focusing on the main aspects of the manuscript (impacts of fire exclusion on community dynamics).
Line 36 – This sentence repeats itself. I suggest deleting “which are more frequent with less intensity”.
Line 40 – I’m not sure this statement holds true in the tropics. I’d be a bit more specific to woodlands or savannas.
Line 44 – I suggest replacing “single species” with “few species”. As you point out, single species overstories are possible, but are they really the biological norm?
Line 65 – I don’t think that the current population contributes greatly to the decline. I think it’s more accurate to say recovery of longleaf pine habitat, which you kind of allude to in the subsequent sentences.
Line 85 – Add scientific names for oak and magnolia.
Line 107 – It would be good to develop the soil fertility story a bit more in the Introduction. It could be argued that fire suppression, and its associated facilitation of hardwood encroachment, might enhance soil fertility.
General Comment – Adding questions or hypotheses would help the reader understand what this study is trying to accomplish/test. Why would we expect the tree demographics to differ between campus and the natural areas? Why might soil fertility differ? Etc…
Methods
Line 138 – Was the understory also sampled or just tree species? I think the understory condition would be the more interesting story.
Line 142 – How many samples were taken per plot? Were multiple samples pooled at the plot level?
Line 150 – At what height were the cross sections taken?
Line 177 – What are the pre- fire exclusion sites? Everything is post-fire exclusion.
Results/Discussion
Line 209 – If importance values are referenced, they should be displayed in the manuscript.
Line 310 – Where is the open matrix located? It’s not on the main campus (buildings, quads, trails etc..), is it? If so, the nutrient data may be confounded by several factors. Please make this clear.
Line 320 – Interesting.
Line 341 – Why wouldn’t fine root turnover also occur with trees?
Table 1 – What do the asterisks represent?
General comment – It’s interesting that inorganic N and P is higher in the post stand compared to the pre. Yet, cation availability was consistently higher in the pre relative to the post. This pattern warrants some discussion, as N and P are generally considered the most limiting nutrients on coarse sands. Thus, is fertility really being diminished?
The writing quality is generally good.
Author Response
Introduction
Line 26 – The sentence I believe is supposed to incorporate surface fire and tropical cyclones. It does not sense as currently written. Changed.
General Comment – Is it necessary to discuss cyclones or the phenomenological model in the first paragraph of this manuscript? I suggest focusing on the main aspects of the manuscript (impacts of fire exclusion on community dynamics). Although I am maintaining inclusion of cyclones, I have shortened associated text.
Line 36 – This sentence repeats itself. I suggest deleting “which are more frequent with less intensity”. Changed.
Line 40 – I’m not sure this statement holds true in the tropics. I’d be a bit more specific to woodlands or savannas. Good point--changed to temperate forests.
Line 44 – I suggest replacing “single species” with “few species”. As you point out, single species overstories are possible, but are they really the biological norm? Changed.
Line 65 – I don’t think that the current population contributes greatly to the decline. I think it’s more accurate to say recovery of longleaf pine habitat, which you kind of allude to in the subsequent sentences. Wording changed.
Line 85 – Add scientific names for oak and magnolia. Added.
Line 107 – It would be good to develop the soil fertility story a bit more in the Introduction. It could be argued that fire suppression, and its associated facilitation of hardwood encroachment, might enhance soil fertility. Good point, done.
General Comment – Adding questions or hypotheses would help the reader understand what this study is trying to accomplish/test. Why would we expect the tree demographics to differ between campus and the natural areas? Why might soil fertility differ? Etc… Done.
Methods
Line 138 – Was the understory also sampled or just tree species? I think the understory condition would be the more interesting story. Forest herb communities are a real interest of mine. Regrettably, the closed canopy created by fire exclusion precludes any appreciable development of forest herbs.
Line 142 – How many samples were taken per plot? Were multiple samples pooled at the plot level? Wording added.
Line 150 – At what height were the cross sections taken? Wording added.
Line 177 – What are the pre- fire exclusion sites? Everything is post-fire exclusion. Wording added.
Results/Discussion
Line 209 – If importance values are referenced, they should be displayed in the manuscript. Added.
Line 310 – Where is the open matrix located? It’s not on the main campus (buildings, quads, trails etc..), is it? If so, the nutrient data may be confounded by several factors. Please make this clear. Wording added.
Line 320 – Interesting. Agreed.
Line 341 – Why wouldn’t fine root turnover also occur with trees? Yes, though not to the same degree as these high-cover grasses in the open.
Table 1 – What do the asterisks represent? Oops--added.
General comment – It’s interesting that inorganic N and P is higher in the post stand compared to the pre. Yet, cation availability was consistently higher in the pre relative to the post. This pattern warrants some discussion, as N and P are generally considered the most limiting nutrients on coarse sands. Thus, is fertility really being diminished? Discussion added.
