54 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2026
    1. A significant outcome of this research lies in its broader implications for forest stewardship. This study recognizes the importance of incorporating Indigenous perspectives—particularly those of the Northern Pomo, the original stewards of these lands—into the responsible management of keystone species such as tanoak. For millennia, Indigenous Californians actively shaped redwood–tanoak ecosystems through intentional and frequent use of fire, sustaining food resources, promoting desired stand conditions, and limiting hazardous fuel accumulation. Tanoak remains culturally central to the Pomo people as a primary food source, emphasizing the need for genuine, collaborative partnerships in future management and research efforts. Integrating Indigenous fire stewardship with contemporary forest management represents not only a pathway toward the practice of pyrosiviculture, but also an essential step toward respectful and sustainable land stewardship.

      not really a conclusion of your study per se...but could be incorporated into earlier portions of your discussion (especially around tanoak responses to treatment). What treatments would promote tanoak representation that would be of value to the Pomo and other indigenous groups in the region?

    2. The simple method we used probably over-estimated vegetation fuel loading, evidenced by the fact that the large fuel loading differences measured for the vegetation class are not reflected in the increase in fine fuels following PCT. Although the contribution of slash foliage is not accounted for, it appears our method may have over predicted vegetation loading by around a factor of three under the assumption that the majority of the difference in vegetation fuels should be captured by the sum of the differences in fine fuels.

      did PCT include treating of non-tree vegetation? I'm not sure I follow the logic of this point as written.

    3. Limitations and future work

      aha. some of my recommendations above are provided here. This is fine. Sometimes it is clearer to weave these into to the main discussion rather than keep as a distinct section. But up to you.

    4. Duff and litter are not reported for post-pct stands for two reasons. First, these are not expected to have changed significantly given the relatively short timespan before and after PCT. Second, our sampling protocol did not make it clear how to quantify the loading for leaves attached to recently cut branches, especially given that these “suspended litter” particles were in a state of active transition to the ground, as they dry, abscise, and sift through the coarser woody fuels as they make their way to the ground. This class may deserve more attention because of it’s potentially dynamic relationship with the timing of prescribed fires: as suspended particles settle and begin to decompose they’re bulk density changes and bulk density is an important determinant of fire behavior.

      I think you can just mention this in the methods and not worry about discussing this here.

    5. live and dead vegetation components were combined

      But you separate these above...not sure I follow. I also think it is worth mentioning that openning the stand results in more live fuels that can contribute to increases in surface fire behavior under dry conditions. Highlighting the trade off of opening up the stand to promote growth of sprouts.

    6. ollowing previous studies that found similar bulk densities for duff and litter

      I don't think they are similar....Finney and Martin demonstrated that bulk density varied with depth and included in their model. Might be worth revisiting. See earlier comments about the limitations of combining.

    7. Sprout height

      if there was no observed difference in basal area among treatments but differences in height growth, seems like diameter:height ratios and total biomass would differ...could be worth explaining a bit.

    8. statistically supported

      do we think this was because of sample size given the wide variation in responses? If so, might make a recommendation for future studies.

    9. Rapidly developing redwood and tanoak sprouts will likely further compromise Douglas-fir seedlings competitive ability.

      especially in the GS treatment where redwood heights were greater?

    10. Additional uncertainty may be due to variable light levels within macro plots.

      do you have an estimate of overstory density for each sprout? If so, you could add this...if not, you could recommend future studies incorporate this variable or some other way to quantify light conditions.

    11. redwood growth

      what do you mean by growth...height growth? I recommend keeping a consistent order of discussing results as presented in the results section. In other words, start with discussing basal area. You might start by saying (assuming I'm interpreting things correctly) that you found differences in basal area among species but not among treatments.

    12. Discussion

      you might consider an "Intro" paragraph to the Discussion that summarizes the major findings related to the objectives and a general assessment to their advancement of understanding on the topic, then get to specifics.

    13. It is important to point out here that the HA and HD “high-density” treatments in this experiment only targeted a residual overstory relative density of 20% (that is 20% of assumed total carrying capacity of the site), and this was selected as an upper limit to support the objective of maintaining conifer growth (Berrill & O’Hara, 2009).

      Feels like methods too. Unless this point is specifically needed to explain results...I'm not sure it is needed in the discussion.

    14. Our use of basal area as a response did not distinguish between number of stems and size of stems. There have been numerous metrics used in attempts to assess shade tolerance (Forrester et al., 2014). Our use of basal area (which conflates growth and survival of sprouts) is justified given the assumption that these are expected to be correlated in forests that do not undergo a long harsh winter (Lin et al., 2002).

      similar to above...this can be condensed with above and moved to methods.

    15. Basal area was selected as the metric for quantifying redwood and tanoak abundance because prolific sprout regeneration in both species was undergoing self-thinning. In this context, basal area provided a more informative measure than stem density, as it better captured treatment responses by reflecting the relative contribution of established stems rather than the transient abundance of sprouts.

      I don't think this needs to go in the discussion. You can state this as justification of measuring basal area in the methods.

    1. 3.3.3 Pre-post commercial thinning comparison

      why not just report this than each separately...seems like overkill to have them individually and combined. This is nice and succinct.

    2. Table 3.11: P

      is there a simpler way to report differences between treatments on the figure than this long table. Might be fine to move to appendix and state where differences are in text. The tables are just a bit unwieldy.

    3. For Duff & Litter, the largest difference was between the HD and HA treatments. The HD treatment had about 54.4 Mg ha-1, and was about 14.39 Mg ha-1 greater than the HA treatment (p = 0.09). Generally, all treatments were similar, with estimated loading of around 47 Mg ha-1.

      as stated above...weird to lump these two measures. Seems like you could find some representative bulk density for duff and litter separately. Graham has this...but it's oddly reported. Or you could use some generic values or representative species from van wagtendonk Sierra Nevada species...not great but would still allow fair comparisons between treatments.

    4. Figure 3.2 shows the same model as Figure 3.1, but with an emphasis on treatment comparisons between redwood and tanoak. This shows that we expect on average, 7.88 m2 ha-1 greater redwood basal area than tanoak basal area in the GS treatment (p = 0.1), about 1.69 m2 ha-1 in the LD treatment (p = 0.4), and about 0.6 m2 ha-1 in the HA treatment (p = 0.48). In the HD treatment, we expect to see slightly higher tanoak basal area (p = 0.55).

      not sure this adds distinct value since you already provided this information.

    5. Table 3.2: Basal area (m2 ha-1) modeled at the vegetation plot level for four harvest treatments and four species classes (n = 16). The asymptotic 95% confidence intervals are based on the normal approximation.

      separate table is not needed if data is already presented as figure.

    6. Redwood regeneration basal area showed the greatest treatment response. The GS treatment had the greatest basal area of redwood regeneration at 10.12 m2 ha-1, which was 9.28 m2 ha-1 greater than in the HD treatment (p = 0.19). The LD and HD treatments were intermediate. Tanoak regeneration basal area was intermediate between that of redwood and Douglas-fir and other species. The GS and LD treatments had similar responses, as did the HA and HD treatments. The GS treatment resulted in 2.24 m2 ha-1 of tanoak basal area, which was 1.33 m2 ha-1 greater than in the HA treatment (p = 0.18). On average, for Douglas-fir, we expect about 0.17 m2 ha-1 of basal area across treatments. The greatest basal area of Douglas-fir was in the GS treatment which was 0.12 m2 ha-1 greater than in the HA treatment (p = 0.76). The LD, HA, and HD treatments were all comparatively similar. Other species included grand fir, madrone, and California wax-myrtle, of which there was a total of 23, 28, and 16 observations across our 16 macro plots (comprising 64 tree density plots). Generally, each plot had between 0 and 9 observations of other species, except for one macro plot with the LD treatment, which had 16 observations (data not shown). According to predictions made from this model for other species, there was not enough evidence to confirm a statistically significant difference between treatments. On average, we expect about 0.11 m2 ha-1 of basal area across treatments. The greatest basal area of other species was in the HD treatment which was 0.12 m2 ha-1 greater than in the HA treatment (p = 0.26). The GS and LD treatments were intermediate.

      might rethink the structure of presenting results. Looks like none of the treatments had differences in basal area for any treatment. I would start with this. Then you can briefly explain some of the trends across species and treatments.

    7. The formulas below use β to represent fixed effects and α to represent random effects. Subscripts indicate the variable associated with each effect. Superscripted Greek letters indicate the model component where fixed or random effects are present in more than one component (e.g., μ for the conditional model, π for the hurdle model, and ϕ for the dispersion model). A “hurdle gamma” distribution is used for models of basal area and fuels and is defined below.

      model details should be placed in the methods (here and elsewhere below)

    1. GLMMtmb,

      need to clearly state that you used a generalized linear mixed modeling approach. Also I don't think I saw what type of distribution was used for each model set. It also wasn't clear what random effects were used for each...though some mention is provided.

    2. duff and litter fuels

      combining litter and duff is not that useful as they burn very differently and only litter effects fire behavior of the flaming front.

    1. Therefore, the objective of this research was to quantify the development of live surface fuels–the forest understory–as well as dead surface fuels by size class and their dynamics with regard to a PCT fuels treatment with potential to reduce fire severity. And to measure these within the context of a multiaged silvicultural system under a range of residual overstory densities to explore trade offs between overstory retention, new sprout development, and surface fuel management.

      Strongly recommend developing a better objectives paragraph that clearly states your study system, general experimental approach/design, and specific study objectives.

    2. 1.4 Pyrosilviculture

      This section is fine. Seems a bit general. I think it could be removed given you have a pretty lengthy intro already. Or it could be better integrated....maybe even earlier. Something to consider.

    3. To our knowledge, no studies have examined the flammability of live tanoak foliage or tanoak sprouts.

      I think you can nix this sentence. While true, it feels like you are setting up this to be a part of your study.

    1. Harvesting techniques designed to promote productivity (like GS, LD) resulted in significantly greater redwood growth and height. However, these same techniques also produced higher levels of live vegetation fuels pre-PCT and, consequently, higher volumes of fine dead fuels (10-hr and 100-hr) immediately following the PCT fuels treatment.

      maybe summarize the implications a bit more....what do the effects on productivity and fuels indicate?

    2. need data

      yes...data I suppose...but really they need information to evaluate their practices. A picky wording choice but typically better to focus on the information rather than the data.