## 4 Discussion  
The study findings highlight the importance of modelling tree growth response to PB as a function stand and tree characteristics, fire season and fire severity variables to gain some insight into individual tree responses. As far as we know, this the first time that variables associated with fire severity, such as the time of exposure to a critical temperature in the bark surface and cambium area and the effect of litterfall after PB, have been included in a model of tree growth response to prescribed burning. These variables play a key role in determining the stress level in trees after fire and they may be essential to enable the estimation of post-burn growth and mortality rate [60]. The findings showed that prescribed burning at a short-term scarcely affected tree growth. Similar findings have been reported by other authors (e.g., [16; 61; 62]). In spring-burned plots in the mixed stand, and in spring- and autumn-burned plots in the pure stand, a decrease in tree growth was observed after burning. The trend in the reduction in tree growth has generally been described as short-term (1-3 years), with growth rates returning to approximately pre-fire levels thereafter [63]. The reduced growth of _Pinus ponderosa_, _P. contortia_ and _P. pulastris_ has been observed one and two years after burning by [64; 65; 66], respectively. Although, other authors pointed to an increase in tree growth after burnings, mainly because fire acts as a mineralizing agent releasing nutrients instantaneously, in contrast to slower natural decomposition processes [67; 68; 69]. However, such nutrient pulses are usually temporary, and the values return to or fall below pre-treatment values within 1-2 years [61]. However, other longer growth recovery rates have also been reported, such as the slight decline in tree growth observed 6 years after fire in _Pinus ponderosa_ and _Pinus sylvestris_[70; 71]. The present findings did not allow for confirmation of a lower disturbance on tree growth after prescribed burning or a faster recovery in a mixed stand compared to pure stands. Nevertheless, several authors have reported that mixed stands are more stable than pure stands, e.g., [72; 73; 74]. Even studies involving soil properties and litterfall carried out in the same experimental plots [43; 48] have revealed this positive effect on mixed stands after prescribed burning. Although there is an abundant literature relating growth responses to climate and to the potential decline in vitality in Mediterranean forests, e.g., [75; 76], the relationships may depend on many stand- and tree-level factors [24; 77]. Our study findings showed that the tree variables included in statistical analysis (percentage of live crown height and DBH) are significant factors in all three models (although the percentage of live crown height showed less significance in Model non-burned). Therefore, regardless of the type of stand (mixed or pure), the particular characteristics of each tree may explain the variability in growth after fire. This may be partly explained by the low percentage of _Pinus pinaster_ in the mixed stand or the low intensity of burning. In this regard, some researchers proposed that factors