Dynamics of Vegetation and Soil Cover of Pyrogenically Disturbed Areas of the Northern Taiga under Conditions of Thermokarst Development and Climate Warming

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A very interesting and well consrructed study. The data and findings will no doubt be of value to the managers of the region, and as well provide a sound base for further research.

A relatively minor but important observation is inconsistency in the referencing. The referencing term "et al." is presented in four different variations. The reference Scientific ... 1989 (line 182) is an incompplete referecne, and occurs a number of times. The bibliography at reference 68 names some authors but finishes with et al. ie there a more authors who should be included. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, please see attached file.

Best regards

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The permafrost zone is one of the most extensive components (landscapes) of the Earth and occupies about 20% of the land surface. These landscapes are extremely sensitive to climatic changes. Climate warming will undoubtedly cause a huge number of undesirable effects in these landscapes. From this point of view, this paper is relevant, as it draws attention to an important problem.

The research results are important for the conservation of biodiversity and nature protection in the permafrost zone.

In the introduction, the relevance of the problem is well substantiated and its state is described. However, the transition from the text of the introduction to the aim of the study is too abrupt and incomprehensible. It is necessary to justify the relevance of a specific research aim. So that the transition from the introduction to the aim is natural and logical. It may be worth expanding the information provided on the impact of fires on permafrost, to provide information on the frequency, intensity and area of fires in Yakutia. The text on permafrost of Holocene may be more logical to move to the beginning of the introduction or to the description of the research area. It is also necessary to clearly formulate the scientific novelty.

The research methodology is described unsatisfactorily. The authors should add the volume of the collected material and describe in more detail the methodology for laying sample plots and obtaining quantitative data on soils and vegetation. In addition, the authors completely ignored the statistical data analysis. The methods of statistical analysis and the corresponding data collection scheme were not chosen when planning the research.

If the relevance and state of the problem, as well as the research objects are described perfectly, then I cannot say this about the results. The research results are very poorly presented, and they are not informative. The authors cite only 2 tables that are dedicated to soils. Information about vegetation is provided schematically only in the text. This does not allow for the analysis of differences in the composition and structure of vegetation. Tables of quantitative data on the composition and structure of stands, regeneration of woody plants, herb and moss layers are needed. Data analysis is performed at the descriptive level. This does not allow us to draw a conclusion about the significance of the changes. Statistical data analysis is completely absent. Tests for the statistical significance of soils differences before and after a wildfire are highly desirable. The same wish applies to vegetation. However, there is no certainty that it is enough data for their correct implementation. In this case, the authors can use DCA. This analysis does not impose any data requirements and can be used in this study.

The lack of statistical data analysis, including tests for the statistical significance of differences, reduces the value of the results and the reliability of the conclusions. In conclusion, it is desirable to formulate practical and theoretical significance, as well as unresolved problems that should be addressed in the future.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see attached file.

Best regards

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors answered all my questions and significantly improved the paper. Please replace the comma with a dot in decimals (Tables 2 and 3).