Wildfire Effects on Rangeland Health in Three Thermo-Mediterranean Vegetation Types in a Small Islet of Eastern Aegean Sea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

 

I begin by congratulating you on the way you managed to structure and present the results of this research. This paper is easy to read, can be understood, but recommends the following adjustments.

Somewhere in the summary/introduction, the novelty of these works should be developed a little better, respectively the regulations regarding the observation of burning vegetation, because taking into account the disasters caused by fires, respectively the prohibition of burning vegetation.

Line 119 – I would suggest a clearer map, the boundaries are not clearly visible, it looks bad for a scientific publication or a map of such clarity

Line 130 – How did you choose the five experimental transects of 20 m??

Line 136 – canopy refers to the vegetal carpet? If so, maybe it would sound like "vegetable cover"

Line 274 – table 4 – Unburned vegetation cover 90.5% and burnt 56.3% is in what year or time?

Line 331 - Figure 5c - on the left side the writing overlaps - it must be corrected

Line 416 - Figure 7a - on the left side the writing overlaps - it must be corrected

Line 439 - Figure 7c - on the left side the writing overlaps - it must be corrected

Dear authors, I have pointed out some mistakes in the work, because it was difficult for me to pass them here.

 

Congratulations.

Author Response

Our point by point response is in the attached document

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The manuscript is a nice contribution to the effect wild fire on various rangeland vegetation parameters and generally I found it good addition to the existing knowledge in the area.  You can find the details of my comments on the PDF format of the manuscript attached herewith. 

Some of my concerns you should look at are as follows, in addition to what I put on the manuscript. 

1) Intensity of fire is not described?! Though fire is very important in rangeland management, its also needs to be noted as its very destructive unless prescribed. For management aim, the fire intensity need to be clarified.

2) In the results section, the nutritive value of different vegetation types compared is totally wrong. As you did in the discussion section, you can only compare between the same vegetation of burned and unburned ones. 

4) The sentence under L30-31 is very vague and very confusing, needs to be improved 

5) Line 141: Reference number??? Plus why two dots(..)

6) Line 294: can't be said significant lower. So, you can use two ways:

                             i) Significantly lower than...

                            ii)...lower than (p < 0.05) in the terraces..

7) The significance in CP content among the vegetation types of the two categories stated in these lines (366-367) is different from the statement described under lines (376-77) that states no differences in CP among the vegetation. 

8) Line 381-382:  I expect some sort of discussion why the CP is different. Also for other quality parameters. When you bring the issue of nutritive value of vegetation, the stage of harvest while sampling is very important. So, are the samples taken at the same stage of growth under both categories for single vegetation?  Moreover, you can only be able compare between the same vegetation before and after burning. The reason is that its obvious that different vegetation exhibits different values in terms of nutritive 

9) Table 8 is wrong, comparison between vegetation types!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor English language edition is needed, otherwise fine. 

Author Response

Our point by point response is in the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Manuscript ID: land-2419967

Title: Wild fire effects on ecosystem services in three thermo-Mediterranean vegetation types in a small islet of eastern Aegean Sea

Authors: Zoi M. Parissi, Apostolos P. Kyriazopoulos, Theodora Apostolia Drakopoulou, Georgios Korakis, and Eleni M. Abraham

 

 

The primary reason for my proposal to reject the paper is that I did not find a clear contribution to the existing literature in this article. In addition, the research is extremely short, only one year was available for data collection. Since 2013, it would have been worthwhile to repeat the study and reflect on changes over time.

In addition to the short time span, the lack of data is another problem. Five transects were recorded in three areas, but not with the microcenological method, which would have enabled the exploration of the fine structure. A total of 1,500 points were recorded. Another problem I have is that the sample size assigned to the selected point is not specified. I do not see an alternative to the classic 2x2 meter or 1x1 meter coenological survey, which is common in grasslands, as a result of which the coverage of the species is incomprehensible.

Although the structure of the thesis is clear, the selection of statistical methods is not justified in the analysis part. Another problem is that physiognomy and landscape use are mixed up in the selection of vegetation types. (low formation and abandoned terraces)

In addition, there are typographical errors throughout the manuscript, including the name of the main plant species Cistus criticus in line 36. and 38. instead of Cistus creticus. These issues significantly affect the quality of the paper and its potential contribution to the field.

I recommend that you revise your manuscript to address these concerns before publishing elsewhere. Please consider a more detailed description of the research design and the statistical analysis, as well as ensuring the appropriate quality of dataset. Also, read the manuscript carefully for typos and inconsistencies.

Author Response

Our point by point response is in the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Can you modify the title as I suggested on the you manuscript?

Am not interested on the choice of your title.