Using a Multi-Century Post-Fire Chronosequence to Develop Criteria to Distinguish Prior and Bowman’s (2020) Post-Fire Obligate Coloniser and Fire-Intolerant Flora
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I think this is a really nice addition to the literature. The piece is well written and adds a concrete example to a proposed scheme of post fire recovery.
My only recommendation is to provide the notation for the the sentences 'Lysiana, therefore, would be classified as fire-intolerant in obligate-seeder [Rf-Sf-C+] woodlands. Amyema ... could be classed as a post-fire obligate coloniser [Rf-Sf-C-]' to remind the reader of this scheme as stated in the introduction: '(i) post-fire obligate colonisers (Rf-Sf-C+; using the notation of [1]), being species that neither resprout nor produce seedlings from persistent seed banks post-fire but are able to colonise burnt areas through dispersal from unburnt populations; and (ii) fire-intolerant (Rf-Sf-C-), which are unable to recover after fire by either resprouting, seeding or colonisation'.
Author Response
The text has been changed as suggested to: "Lysiana, therefore, would be classified as fire-intolerant (Rf-Sf-C-) in obligate-seeder woodlands." and "Amyema...this species could be classed as a post-fire obligate coloniser (Rf-Sf-C+)..."
Reviewer 2 Report
Using a multi-century post-fire chronosequence to develop criteria to distinguish Prior and Bowman’s (2020) post-fire obligate coloniser and fire-intolerant flora
Gosper & Prober
This is an excellent short Viewpoint ms that adds considerably to the recent article by Prior and Bowman (2020) in the same journal. It provides a beautiful example of two Western Australian mistletoe species with contrasting post-fire colonisation abilities. Contextualising these abilities against prevailing fire regimes, the authors justify their conclusion that one should be classed as a post-fire coloniser, the other as fire-intolerant.
The ms is extremely well written and I could not spot any errors. The authors develop their arguments clearly and logically, and the ms was a pleasure to read. I have only two minor comments.
The first is that Pausas and Keeley (2014) recognised post-fire colonisation as a post-fire strategy (but they did not propose it as a trait), and this should be acknowledged. (Prior and Bowman were the first to propose recognising it as a trait).
The second is that the authors state that post-fire colonisation ability is a continuum – this is of course true. The other two post-fire recovery traits - seeding and resprouting are also on a continuum rather than binary. Gosper and Prober do a useful service in describing how to objectively decide whether a species is an effective coloniser or not. A similar discussion would be useful regarding seeding and resprouting traits, especially as trait databases are being developed and becoming increasingly used.
Author Response
Reviewer comment: The first is that Pausas and Keeley (2014) recognised post-fire colonisation as a post-fire strategy (but they did not propose it as a trait), and this should be acknowledged. (Prior and Bowman were the first to propose recognising it as a trait).
Response: We have changed the text to (L15-20): "Prior and Bowman [1] added a new dimension to existing frameworks of post-fire responses of woody plants [2,3]. Building on Pausas and Keeley’s [2] post-fire coloniser strategy for those taxa which neither resprout (Rf-) nor produce seedlings (Sf-) after fire, Prior and Bowman [1] included colonisation ability (C) as a trait. Specifically, Prior and Bowman [1] recognised distinctions between…"
Reviewer comment: The second is that the authors state that post-fire colonisation ability is a continuum – this is of course true. The other two post-fire recovery traits - seeding and resprouting are also on a continuum rather than binary. Gosper and Prober do a useful service in describing how to objectively decide whether a species is an effective coloniser or not. A similar discussion would be useful regarding seeding and resprouting traits, especially as trait databases are being developed and becoming increasingly used.
Response: As we do not bring any relevant data to test the continuous nature of resprouting and seeding traits in the manuscript, we do not think it appropriate to propose novel criteria to objectively allocate species and populations to binary categories of resprouters and seeders. However, we agree with the reviewer that resprouting and seeding do, like colonisation ability, vary in a continuum and that it is important to recognise such variation. Consequently, we have added to the text emphasising the necessity of considering the continuous nature of variation (L75-79): "The continuum of responses in colonisation ability between populations within species and between species is not dissimilar to continuous variation in resprouting and seeding ability [3,17]. In studies and databases aggregating post-fire plant traits in binary categories, we note the importance of explicitly defining the criteria used and having database functionality to capture data at a population and fire event level."
