Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is interesting and takes important problem of stabilization and protection of the areas damages by wildfires. Paper structure and source materials are appropriate. The proposed methodology and the obtained results are encouraging and allows for need next steps and confirmation their useful in large scale (e.g. watershed). Below I mention some problems with your article.

General comments:

1.Study area needs supplementation. I propose to add one paragraph with more detailed description of study area, e.g. geological units, landforms and hydrography, soil cover and natural vegetation. Add some information about land cover and land use.

2. Materials and Methods:: You described the runoff total volume (e.g. see Table 3) but in the statistical analysis you used the runoff intensity parameter [mm/h]. It’s not clear, can you explain the choose of this parameter? You should descript more detailed the field survey’s, e.g. measurement methods of runoff. You can descript how you calculated the runoff volume in mm derivates from the plot-scale measurement.

3.  Conclusions need correction.

Detailed comments are provided in the text (enclosed pdf).

 To discussion:

1/The runoff volume is often expressed in m³, but specific runoff w mm/m^-2. You used not typical units: mm or mm/h. In the scientific papers it is used the standard units (SI units) and for the Mass is kilogram [kg]. And the sediment yields is expressed in kg/m² or kg/m (see: FAO, 1965. Soil Erosion by Water: Some measures for its Control on Cultivated lands. FAO/UNESCO, Paryż).

2/ It is not possible to directly convert unit indicators obtained from plot-scale surveys to larger areas (watershed scale) in ha or km² and compare them.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find in the attached file a table with the changes proposed/requested by the two reviewers, whom we thank for helping to improve our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article quite clearly describes the effects of fire on the protective functions of the forest ecosystem, and justifies the need to restore the protective functions of forest damaged by fire in semi-arid Mediterranean areas.

The manuscript is satisfactorily scholarly. However, attention to the following issues could improve the quality of the manuscript:

Lines 102 – 104: The sentence needs to be rephrased for clarity.

Experimental scheme: How many logs were placed per plot in the B and BR plot-blocks? Were there equal numbers per plot-block? This should be made clear in the description of the experimental design.

Lines 241 – 242: Was the meteorological station located 3 km away or 3 km apart from the plot-blocks? The sentence is ambiguous and needs to be rephrased for clarity.

Lines 256 – 257: Were the dried samples weighted or weighed? Please use the correct wording.

Line 267: Is the plot-block BR or Br?

Line 332: The phrase “Along the experimental campaign” sounds odd and should be rephrased for clarity.

Lines 426 – 428: The sentence is ambiguous and needs to be recast for clarity.

Line 435: BA should read BR.

Table 7: The first column heading should rather be “Plot” instead of “Kruskal-Wallis”.

Conclusion: The first four (4) paragraphs of the conclusion sounds more like an abstract, and needs to be rewritten in the context of the objectives, the results, as well as the management implications of the results.

The quality of English is satisfactory. However, some sentences are ambiguous and lack clarity. These may be edited to improve the standard of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find in the attached file a table with the changes proposed/requested by the two reviewers, whom we thank for helping to improve our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf