the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Contrasting early- and late-Holocene vegetation and wildfire regimes in a high-value drinking water supply area, Canada
Abstract. Paleoenvironmental reconstructions of past ecosystems and fire regimes can strengthen interpretations of modelled future fire environments. In this study, sediment cores from four lakes in a high-value water supply area on southern Vancouver Island, Canada, are used to compare climate, vegetation, and fire along a regional east-west precipitation gradient between warm-dry early- and cool-moist late-Holocene intervals. Results indicate that inferred precipitation was lower in the past, with more open-canopy xeric Douglas-fir forests compared to present-day closed-canopy mesic western hemlock and cedar forests. Overall, the wettest and western-most site experienced the greatest change, with more frequent early-Holocene fires yielding to longer fire return intervals in the late-Holocene. This implies that northern coastal temperate rain shadow forests, currently experiencing little fire, may become more vulnerable in the future. It also highlights susceptibility to fire regime shifts consistent with regional observations and models suggesting current and future increases in extreme fire disturbance.
- Preprint
(1622 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3463', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Oct 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3463', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Oct 2025
This is an interesting paper that is suitable for publication in Climate of the Past with a small amount of further work.
Â
I recommend minor to moderate revisions, that will not take long to do. I attach a commented up copy of the manuscript so that you can see where problems occur, including the inevitable typos.
Â
Please add a paragraph criticizing your approach and outlining its uncertainties and limitations. Leslie Anderson's 2022 paper in Quat. Res. showing that there are serious problems with using charcoal counts rather than area should be mentioned here. I am not recommending that you change your analysis from that of charcoal particle numbers to surface area, but I am asking you to be upfront about this problem in the discussion.
Â
As the paper is now written, it is targeted towards a very narrow specialized group of readers: pollen and charcoal people working in the Pacific Northwest who know that literature well. It needs to be made more accessible to the wider community, especially as Climate of the Past is a European journal. It can be greatly improved simply adding explanatory parenthetical phrases where commented. For example, define in Methods what are your tree classes: invaders, resisters, etc, instead of having the reader guess.
Â
In particular, the Methods section needs to expanded to fully explain what was done so that a beginning grad student is able to reproduce the various analyses or apply them to their own data. For example, fully explain how you standardized charcoal influxes and calculated the bootstrapped CIs. Explain what is the goal of each statistical test: "in order to ...."
Â
Don't use acronyms unless you use them more than 7-10 times in the paper. They clog the paper and the reader gets cranky trying to look them up. CWHmm is such an example perhaps.
Â
Figures and tables and their captions have to be able to stand apart from their text, so you should write acronyms in the captions out in full.
Â
Why did you use Tmax from the GCMs instead of Mean July air temp which is what you are comparing to?
Â
Need a more detailed explanation of how MAP is calculated from DWHI as they seem to be different but you also use them interchangably.
Â
Reorder Fig 2 lakes to follow your regular order.
Â
Did you play with the smoother type to see if you could get SNI > 3? Moving mode can work well.
Â
Don't italicize family names.
Â
I don't see how you can conclude from peak size that the fires were bigger, they could have simply been closer. You are making this assumption several times and it seems not well founded as you do not have charcoal particle size data.
Â
Data sets
Frog Lake - FROGVI - 36179 D. R. Horrelt et al. https://data.neotomadb.org/datasets/64898
Swanson Lake - SWANSVI - 36200 D. R. Horrelt et al. https://data.neotomadb.org/datasets/64900
Worley Lake - WORLEYVI - 36201 D. R. Horrelt et al. https://data.neotomadb.org/datasets/64903
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,778 | 63 | 15 | 1,856 | 39 | 43 |
- HTML: 1,778
- PDF: 63
- XML: 15
- Total: 1,856
- BibTeX: 39
- EndNote: 43
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
I have attached my comments in a PDF file.