Detecting Trends in Post-Fire Forest Recovery in Middle Volga from 2000 to 2023
, Ludmila Tarasova 1, Aydin Yakhyayev 2, Oleg Vorobev 1, Siyavush Gozalov 3, Sergei Lezhnin 1, Jinliang Wang 4, Jinming Sha 5, Denis Dergunov 1 and Anna Yastrebova 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is devoted to the current and important problem of post-fire forest recovery. The authors presented a comprehensive analysis of post-fire forest recovery using Landsat time series data from 2000 to 2023 in the Middle Volga region of the Russian Federation. Modern methods and approaches were used. The article is well written and illustrated.
Title
The title corresponds to the content.
Abstract
I think the last sentence of the abstract should be edited. This study certainly contributes to our understanding of forest recovery dynamics after fire, but I'm not entirely sure that it provides new insights. How is it new compared to other approaches?
Introduction
The introduction contains all the necessary background information. However, I recommend focusing on the novelty and significance of research for the global scientific community. It may be worth noting what issues were not addressed in previous studies.
Materials and Methods
The methodology approaches are described in detail. The authors used methods adequate to the tasks set. I recommend that the authors make minor edits:
1. Line 163. Provide classification of soils according to World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB).
2. Line 167. Provide a classification of climate according to the Köppen-Geiger climate classification.
3. Line 176. The main forest types are given according to which forest typology?
4. Line 297. Table 2. The number two is highlighted in green.
5. Line 306. Perhaps it is worth writing here that quite often during forest restoration there is a change in plant communities, that coniferous forests are replaced by deciduous ones, and to cite research on this topic.
6. Line 333-340. I recommend providing references to the methods by which the characteristics of the sample plots were studied. What does soil condition mean?
Results
The results are presented clearly and understandably enough. The research results are illustrated with 8 figures and 4 tables, that there are informative and do not duplicate each other.
Figures 9 and 10 are of low quality at sections a).
Discussion
In my opinion, this section requires editing. In my opinion, the first sentence should not specify the region; on the contrary, it should emphasize that fires are a global problem. The second and third paragraphs list the results, but there is no discussion. Perhaps it would be worth writing what was studied for the first time, in which countries similar studies were conducted, how the obtained results differ from others.
Conclusions
Conclusions follow from the results and are reasonable.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, please see our responses in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled "Detecting trends in post-fire forest recovery in Middle Volga from 2000 to 2023”," obtained some findings which might have implications for understanding the post-fire forest recovery in Middle Volga from 2000 to 2023. The manuscript seems interesting and informative. With a detailed reading of the MS, I have suggested the following changes to enhance presentation and readability for both the scientific and non-scientific communities.
comments:
Line 18: analysis rather “analyses”
Line 18: utilized rather “utilized”
Line 22: the results suggests rather “suggested”
Line 25: belonged rather “belong”
Line 26: the model showed that “the…..”
Line 30-31: At least six pertinent keywords that aren't in the title should be present in the manuscript. The keywords first letter should be in capital letters and carefully chosen to enhance the discoverability of the research.
Line 40: replace “connection with” to “relation to”
Line 41: please delete “to” to prevent …..
Line 160: please replace Fig. 1 caption as ….Geographical distribution of study area.
Please also write possible limitation of study in the MS.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Please improve the language, clarity, and readability of the entire manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, please see our responses in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of this research is interesting, represents an interesting line of research and appropriate for publication in Forests. I accept after minor revisions this manuscript for publication in this journal. I have some suggestions.
The authors have done great. The manuscript is presented well and demonstrates an awareness of other research on its topic, but the manuscript is extensive, sometimes exhausting to read.
The abstract must be improved. The objectives must be clearly indicated in the abstract.
The objective of this study was to examine whether the high burn severity (BS) levels and climate factors - land surface temperature (LST) and variability in precipitation (Pr),) influence forest recovery.
The innovation of the article should be presented to the introduction.
The shortcomings of the research, the future research direction, should be discussed at the Conclusions. Also, it should indicate: How is the findings can help management decisions as is referred in the conclusions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, please see our responses in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo further comments, Good luck.
