Identifying Optimal Summer Microclimate for Conifer Seedlings in a Postfire Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is nice explanatory study that is easy to follow and to understand for readers. However, there are some issues with my understanding the concepts within the scope of this manuscript. Why did you choose those two values (sun and VPD) as seen in PCA they are closely correlated and behave the same? Both can be seen as drought indicators that have a direct mutual connection-if there is more sun that there is more evaporation (VPD)? Figures and tables at some instances require more clarification as some information is missing. On positive note I commend the authors for point out the limitations of study and suggestions for future research on this topic.

In my opinion there are some research gaps in inconsistencies that hamper the flow of thoughts on understanding for readers therefore major revisions of manuscript are suggested in order to improve the quality of this paper.

Specific comment about some parts of manuscript:

L22 xxx?

L23 it is not appropriate to state that KW test measured. It can be stated that it was used to compare differences between variables of something of that kind

L82 Figure 1. This figure is best suited to materials and methods part of manuscript; it doesn’t comply with introduction part of article. It would be appreciated if larger map of area is created or some coordinates of study area is given (for international readers that do not know where McKenzie River watershed is?) due to large area of this location. Also the first mention of figure or table in text should be next to place where it is supposed to land.

L121 Figure 2. It takes to much white space. I would suggest to authors to rearrange it as flowchart in one line?

L153-154 This sentence is missing something (verb?). Maybe it should be joint with previous sentence. The area of each subplot where the measurements of seedling were taken should be given. Also regarding the table 1, results are not clear. Is this total number of seedlings on all of 20 plots or what does it represent? it should be given in number per square meters.

L161 name the device model and manufacture you used for this measurements?

L171 This table 1 does not have title? Previous comment reflects on this table. This is too vague, if seedlings dimensions were recorded why not list them here? It would be interesting to see if there is difference in post fire success of seedlings not only on terms of number but dimensions

L218 This is wrong title for first subchapter of results

L230-231 What arguments do you have to support this claim? what was the correlation among those variables?

L235 why did you not visualize this results in manuscript?

L252 Figure 5. This figure is somehow disjoint with text before. Why did you only single out difference among optimal and non-optimal conditions leaving out all in between (in Figure 7 you have 4 categories)? Not related to this figure but what was the size of gaps in which subplots were established? Were there in proximity of them some unburnt trees or was is at postfire landscape? This could influence the seed source and cover for seedlings which can translate into greater abundance irrespective of site conditions

L269 Figure 7. This is nice graph but it reveals more on terms of suitability of site for having optimal postfire conditions than it has on actual results. It is more of a topographic analysis than it is pointing to reasons for success of seedlings. This could be nicely translated in prediction models that display post fire succession on larger areas

There is problem with consistency of terminology in paper: somewhere you state sun, other is light and there is also sunlight. It should be consistent terminology though whole manuscript (including figures)

L287 do you have a reference for optimal sun percentage of 40% for Douglas fir?

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript and play a vital role in the peer review process. Below are the detailed responses and corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files.

L22 xxx?

This was an embarrassing typo and has been corrected in L22. Thanks :)

L23 it is not appropriate to state that KW test measured. It can be stated that it was used to compare differences between variables of something of that kind

I understand the need for this change, "measured" has been replaced with "used to compare differences..." in L23.

L82 Figure 1. This figure is best suited to materials and methods part of manuscript; it doesn’t comply with introduction part of article. It would be appreciated if larger map of area is created or some coordinates of study area is given (for international readers that do not know where McKenzie River watershed is?) due to large area of this location. Also the first mention of figure or table in text should be next to place where it is supposed to land.

I appreciate this idea a lot, and did add coordinates to this updated version (L64). I hope with more time in the next round to move this to the methods, and place a vicinity map in the introduction. Some of this paragraph was moved lower so the map appeared at first mention (L77-88).

L121 Figure 2. It takes to much white space. I would suggest to authors to rearrange it as flowchart in one line?

I've been struggling with how to depict this figure. I think this helps! Thanks. L142.

L153-154 This sentence is missing something (verb?). Maybe it should be joint with previous sentence. The area of each subplot where the measurements of seedling were taken should be given. Also regarding the table 1, results are not clear. Is this total number of seedlings on all of 20 plots or what does it represent? it should be given in number per square meters.

This typo was deleted. I did add number per square meters, thank you for the suggestion. L185.

L161 name the device model and manufacture you used for this measurements?

L176

L171 This table 1 does not have title? Previous comment reflects on this table. This is too vague, if seedlings dimensions were recorded why not list them here? It would be interesting to see if there is difference in post fire success of seedlings not only on terms of number but dimensions

I plan to add another column giving those dimensions. That's a great and important detail that shouldn't be excluded. Unfortunately I ran out of time in this round of edits, but will prioritize it going forward. I added a title L185.

L218 This is wrong title for first subchapter of results

Deleted

L230-231 What arguments do you have to support this claim? what was the correlation among those variables?

This claim was visually supported by the PCA as part of an exploratory analysis. The claim was rephrased as a qualitative observation L243-245 to avoid over generalizing.

L235 why did you not visualize this results in manuscript?

Figures of the LOESS curves have been added. They were excluded because they were considered part of the preliminary/exploratory analysis, and since LOESS performance can be sometimes difficult to quantify as a result of it's exploratory nature. I also didn't want modeling to overtake the paper, but I see now how important it is to visualize the foundation of this analysis. Thank you.

L252 Figure 5. This figure is somehow disjoint with text before. Why did you only single out difference among optimal and non-optimal conditions leaving out all in between (in Figure 7 you have 4 categories)? Not related to this figure but what was the size of gaps in which subplots were established? Were there in proximity of them some unburnt trees or was is at postfire landscape? This could influence the seed source and cover for seedlings which can translate into greater abundance irrespective of site conditions

Your comment made me discover a syntax error in my analysis, slightly affecting the highlighted p values L 262;265. Some of these results were rephrased as a result. I also moved some of the figures around to compare nonoptimal to optimal microclimate, then refine into further categories for a cleaner flow of thought. Thank you very much!

This is a great direction I hope to incorporate more into this study. We did measure the distance to the nearest live tree, and acknowledge the relationship in L311-321. Microclimate is greatly influenced by canopy cover from live trees, and this work uses microclimate to explain part of the relationship from seed tree to seedling.

L269 Figure 7. This is nice graph but it reveals more on terms of suitability of site for having optimal postfire conditions than it has on actual results. It is more of a topographic analysis than it is pointing to reasons for success of seedlings. This could be nicely translated in prediction models that display post fire succession on larger areas

This is a valid point, one of the goals for this work was to inform future modeling at a hillside scale. Thanks! L282-284

There is problem with consistency of terminology in paper: somewhere you state sun, other is light and there is also sunlight. It should be consistent terminology though whole manuscript (including figures).

Fixed! All should say "sun" or "percent sun" or "sun percent". "Light" was mentioned as part of literature review, in a generalized context.

L287 do you have a reference for optimal sun percentage of 40% for Douglas fir?

The LOESS curves now in the manuscript show a peak of 37.9% sun L306. Though I generalize to the conifers within the study, and use Douglas fir as a talking point rather than claim to know the species specific optimal peak.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. There are a couple of typos, such as Line 22 and Line 303, that might need to be removed or need more explanation.
2. Indeed, there should be more field data to support your findings, but that will take another year or two.  Are there weather records from nearby stations to compensate for that weak link?
3. Need to separate the conclusion section from the discussion section.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript and play a vital role in the peer review process. Below are the detailed responses and corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files. I apologize for the short feedback, I seemed to not be able to view your comments in the pdf. But I address the comments below.

There are a couple of typos, such as Line 22 and Line 303, that might need to be removed or need more explanation.

Both embarrassing typos have been resolved! Thank you.

Indeed, there should be more field data to support your findings, but that will take another year or two.  Are there weather records from nearby stations to compensate for that weak link?

This is something being explored in later manuscript tied to this project. As of right now, consistent accurate data for the actual study sites is difficult to obtain because they are so remote. If you have an idea of how to tie it into this one, it'd be a huge step for this work! Thanks for suggesting this direction.

1. Need to separate the conclusion section from the discussion section.

A conclusions section was listed as "optional" so I moved a paragraph that seemed premature for the discussion to this point. It seems to flow better here. I appreciate your feedback on this, I see  more worth in it now for linearity. Thanks!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The estimation of post-fire forest regeneration is a subject of critical importance, further amplified by the challenges of climate change. This manuscript investigates the influence of microclimate on this recovery process. Using ground measurements and non-parametric tests, the study successfully identifies optimal ranges of VPD and sunlight for post-fire conifer regeneration in Oregon's McKenzie River watershed (USA). It also evaluates how fire severity modulates these conditions, providing valuable insights for managing shifting fire regimes. The study demonstrates scientific rigor and academic merit through its methodology and findings. Given the relevance of its subject, the robustness of its methodology, and the significance of its results, the study aligns strongly with the aims and scope of the “Forests”.

However, upon reviewing the manuscript, I have identified several questions and concerns, indicating that the paper requires improvement. The primary issues relate to the paper's structure.

The Introduction section should be expanded by including examples in the field of study from other regions around the globe.

Figures 1, 5, 6, and 7 require improved clarity and sharpness. Please replace them with high-resolution versions.

60-68 I recommend moving this section to 'Object of the Study,' which should be expanded to include details such as geographic location (with map), climate conditions, specific eco zone, etc.

114-135 This part is more appropriate for the methodology section of the manuscript.  

186 Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis statistical analyses …. the reference is needed.

235 Some key statistics (if any) will be useful for understanding the model's accuracy, reliability, and overall performance.

278-281 No need to repeat the research objectives in the discussion section.

285, 288 Reference 32 is not appropriate in this context.

344 18]

For a logical flow, include the conclusions section after the discussion.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript and play a vital role in the peer review process. Below are the detailed responses and corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files.

The Introduction section should be expanded by including examples in the field of study from other regions around the globe.

Some of this was addressed in L75-77, though I'd like to elaborate more on it in future iterations. I appreciate this feedback, but am unsure where would be a good place to put these comparisons in the introduction. I plan to add more to this.

Figures 1, 5, 6, and 7 require improved clarity and sharpness. Please replace them with high-resolution versions.

Thanks for pointing this out. I thought it was only an error on my monitor. These have been replaced.

60-68 I recommend moving this section to 'Object of the Study,' which should be expanded to include details such as geographic location (with map), climate conditions, specific eco zone, etc.

I agree, this definitely made more sense where you placed it. Thank you for helping with the organization of this!

114-135 This part is more appropriate for the methodology section of the manuscript.  

I have struggled with where to put this section since the very beginning. Thank you for this suggestion. I moved it to L124-145.

186 Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis statistical analyses …. the reference is needed.

Added. L118-121

235 Some key statistics (if any) will be useful for understanding the model's accuracy, reliability, and overall performance.

LOESS I believe is often used for visual assessment of data, though I added those visual curves for qualitative assessment of the model. Would something like an R^2 be more appropriate? I have conflicting thoughts, since the model is not directly analyzing the variables.

278-281 No need to repeat the research objectives in the discussion section.

Deleted.

285, 288 Reference 32 is not appropriate in this context.

I appreciate that you noticed that. Should be fixed now.

344 For a logical flow, include the conclusions section after the discussion.

This was a great move. I really appreciate this suggestion. It helped a lot!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the best.