## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Fixed Effects**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Model NB**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Model NB**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Model NB**} \\ \hline  & **Entimate** & **SE** & **\#** & **\#** & **\#** & **Estimate** & **SE** & **\#** & **\#** & **Estimate** & **SE** & **\#** & **\#** \\ \hline  & **Entimate** & **SE** & **\#** & **\#** & **\#** & **Estimate** & **SE** & **\#** & **\#** & **\#** \\ \hline  & 1.304 \(\times\)10\({}^{2}\) & 6.025 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) & 16.066 & -0.001 & 1.207 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) & 9.274 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) & 13.508 & 0.008 & 1.448 \(\times\) 10\({}^{4}\) & 1.307 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-1}\) & 16.63 & 0.0007 \\  & 16 & 6.48 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) & **9.378** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-3}\) & **6.947** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) & **5.335** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) & **2.181** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) & **4.358** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) & 1.685 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) & 1.278 & 0.0054 \\  & 2011 & 6.48 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) & **9.366** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-3}\) & **5.367** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-3}\) & **5.365** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-3}\) & **5.365** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-3}\) & **7.728** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) & **5.005** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-3}\) & **1.207** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) & **4.158** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) & **4.018** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) \\  & 300 & -3.50 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) & **3.500** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-3}\) & **-4.423** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) & **-2.270** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-1}\) & **4.005** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) & **-7.411** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-1}\) & **-7.411** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-1}\) & **-7.451** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) & **-7.451** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) \\  & 600 & -1.284 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-3}\) & **5.360** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-3}\) & **-2.273** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-1}\) & **-1.270** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-1}\) & **-1.175** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-1}\) & **-1.540** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-1}\) & **-1.277** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) & **-** & - & - & - \\  & -2.796 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-3}\) & **6.190** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-3}\) & **-4.540** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) & **-1.009** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-1}\) & **-2.307** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) & **-1.406** \(\times\) 10\({}^{-1}\) & **-** & - & - & - & - \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Model NB} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Model NB} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Variance} & SE & \multicolumn{3}{c}{P(\(\times\))(Chius)} & Variance & SE & \multicolumn{3}{c}{P(\(\times\)Chius)} & Variance & SE & \multicolumn{3}{c}{P(\(\times\)Chius)} \\ \hline  & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 1.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0564 & 0.0590 & 0.0207 & 0.1696 & 0.2533 \\  & 0.0177 & 0.1330 & 1.0000 & 0.0190 & 0.1329 & 1.0000 & 0.0133 & 0.0264 & 1.0000 \\  & 0.0105 & 0.1028 & 1.0000 & 0.0188 & 0.1573 & 1.0000 & 0.0287 & 0.1969 & 1.0000 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Summary of statistical results. affecting tree growth rate before fire continue to affect post-fire growth (e.g., [64]), although others have suggested the opposite [70]. The maximum scorch height was a significant variable that negatively influenced tree growth after spring and autumn burning. It is, therefore, possible that higher scorch heights may imply greater added stress on trees and should, therefore, be avoided. Indeed, fire-damaged trees require stored carbohydrates to replenish tissues, depleting carbohydrate reserves, often compromising tree growth [60]. Despite these results, maximum scorch height proved to be a random variable regarding litterfall in the same experimental plots, although it was probably due to the fact that the maximum scorch height was reached below the mean height of the first live branch [43]. The time during which the temperature remained above 300 \({}^{\circ}\)C in the bark surface had a significant response regarding tree growth only during spring PB; in addition, the time during which the temperature remained above 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C in the inner bark (cambium area) was also significant during spring PB.