Flora and Vegetation Characteristics of the Natural Habitat of the Endangered Plant Pterygopleurum neurophyllum

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

 

See below the revisision comments of the article "Flora and Vegetation Characteristics of the Natural Habitat of the Endangered Plant Pterygopleurum neurophyllum".

 

Summary

This paper analyzes for the first time the native habitat of Pterygopleurum neurophyllum (endangered species) focusing in vegetation structure characteristics and restoration and conservation strategies. Thus, it is a good contribution to the the knowledge of an endangered species, highligting the basis for its conservation.

It was observed that Pterygopleurum neurophyllum is a companion secies of Miscanthus sachariflorus community contributing to a phytossociological approximation.

 

Broad comments and Specific comments

Introduction

Lines 101 and 102

Pterygopleurum neurophyllum is repeated two twices in the same sentence.

 

Methods

In relation to the methods for the vegetation surveys:

1. The area of 25 m² for arborescent communities seems to be very small. What is the average height of the trees?
2. The number of locations referred is 37, but how many relevés made in which type of communities (herbaceous versus arborescent)?
3. Lines 149-151: “Moreover, this study applied the traditional classification method and a classification method transformed by natural logarithm, advantageous for mathematical analysis, for the extraction of vegetation units. The 151 relative net contribution degree...” – It is not clear which was the classification method applied? The classification methods applied are not clear in the article, which a topic to improve. 

 

 

Results & Discussion

 

Communities surveyed are very poor in characteritic species, mainly with only one characteristic species. The article can be improved if authors could include in the discussion some explanations for the characteristic species scarcity.

On the other hand, the article can also be greatly improved by the inclusion of a dendrogram classfication, obtained for example by an hierarchical cluster analysis and with the inclusion of a syntaxonomic scheme of the identified communities. Thus it is important to integrate those communities in aliances, orders and classes and present some possible discussion related to the syntaxonomic positions.  

 

Best regards and good revision.

 

 

Author Response

 

Thank you very much for your valuable comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, please receive my congrats for your manuscripts, it is a good demonstration of the needing of control of competitor plants for endangered species. I suggest some small changes. Please find below my review:

----

This paper deals with the phytosociological placing of the endangered species Pterygopleurum neurophyllum in South Korea, categorized there as Critically Endangered, as a way to detect conservation risks and future conservations actions.

In my opinion, this is a good paper demonstrating the effect of widely extended competitor and dominant plants (in this case Miscanthus sacchariflorus) on the conservation of extremely threatened and scarce plants. The methodology and results are according to the hypothesis that that species is causing the extinction of P. neurophyllum.

I think no major revision is needed, but some changes must be made in order to correct several errata and mistakes I’ve detected reading the manuscript. I indicate them for the authors, preceded by row/line numbers

 

11: I recommend to indicate the phytosociological school as Zürich-Montpellier instead of Z-M. due that abstract readers can not be used phytosociological acronyms

17-19: As I indicate afterwards in this review, the names ‘community’ and ‘quadrat/plot’ (=relevé, in Z-M school traditional nomenclature) have been confused here. Please also notice that you are mentioning here 17 plots (not communities, as erroneously indicated!) for the Miscanthus sacchariflorus community, but only 16 ones have been referred into the main text. In fact, attending to the presence of Pterygopleurum neurophyllum in Table 5, A-1 group (relevés without this species) should be formed by 10 plots, instead of 11 plots mentioned in the abstract. I imagine the correct sentence here is: ‘Out of 16 Miscanthus sacchariflorum survey plots, Pterygopleurum neurophyllum was present in 6 plots (A-2 group) but not in 11 plots (A-1 group)’

50: Please enter a gap between Kitag and (Figure 1)

65 and following: In botanical texts, a time a species has been aforementioned in a paragraph, the following times in the same paragraph is named abbreviating the genus name. In this case, in example, the species is indicated as Pterygopleurum neurophyllum at line 64, and it should be mentioned as P. neurophyllum at lines 66, 76, 77, 78, 81, 87, 88, 92, 95 and 97. It can be again written in his complete name Pterygopleurum neurophyllum at the line 98-99 (first time starting a new paragraph), but needing to appear in the abbreviated-genus form in 101, 102, 103 and 106. Please apply along the whole article (except for bibliographic references, of course).

142 and following: There are some confusion along the text between several site designations. Is the same ‘location’ (l. 142) than ‘survey plot’ (l. 266)?. If do, what ‘number of community’ means in table 4 (l. 271)? I imagine that last one must be corrected into: number of plots (or number of quadrats) 

154 and 473: Can you review the correct name of the second author?. Although it has been mentioned sometimes as Manko (as in the manuscript), the original article named it as Manyko, and it is referred in other articles and books in that way. Please consult the original article at: https://www.koreascience.or.kr/article/JAKO199411919966384.pdf

185, 197: Due that a first species of the same genus, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, have been mentioned just before in the same sentence, the second one Ambrosia trifida should be indicated by abbreviating the genus name, as A. trifida. In fact, in the same sentence, only the genus Ambrosia is mentioned, so no confusion can be done with other species from genus given in former sentences (i.e. Actinostemma)

217: At mid legend of the table, please close the parenthesis opened before ‘not producing seeds’.

271: You should indicate at main legend what is meaning the represented numbers for each species (I obviously imagine the mean cover)

I imagine data of mean of coverage, mean of height and mean number of occurring species for column A (Miscanthus sacchariflorus community) should be added, isn’t it?

Is the correct indication ‘Number of community’ or ‘Number of communities’?

274: Are there 16 or 17 quadrats?. As said before in my comments on the abstract errata for this topic, apparent correct number should be 16.

327: Place the varietal name davurica in italics

331: Please correct ‘communities’ when needed. I think you should say ‘appeared I  only 6 quadrats out of 16 Miscanthus sacchariflorus community quadrats’ (quadrats can be changed or alternated with plots)

The difference between A-1 (relevés without P. neurophyllum) and A-2 (those housing the species) should be indicated and explained. Please notice that those 2 groups, A-1 and A-2, are even mentioned in the abstract, bit having no reference in  the main text.

350: As in table 4, the meaning of data for each species should be referred in the main legend; in this case, it matches the combined cover degree scale of Westhoff and Van der Maerl.

Separation between A-1 group and A-2 should be done (i.e. placing a vertical line). I imagine that A-2 group (this one including P. neurophyllum) is formed by the last 6 relevés (s5, s6, s13, s14, s18, s19) but this is not explained anywhere.

Notation must be clarified. On the ‘unit’ row, if placing A-1 in  the relevés data, it should also be indicated as A-1 (instead of A1) in the r-NCD column; and the same for A-2 vs A2

428: Please notice that a third alternative has not been considered, consisting of making experimental translocations in other nearby sites holding helophyte habitats, but having no presence of Miscanthus sacchariflorus, which are excluding species for the remainder plants.  According to the current IUCN Guidelines for Reintrodution and other Conservation Translocations, it will deal with an assisted colonization, but made at short distance, and of course, to be made on sites where P. neurophyllum will not disturb the habitats of other endangered species. This kind of translocations, founding new safe sites for the threatened species, must be recommended due to the risk of extinction generated in a future, if the management of competitor species (cutting or extracting Miscanthus) cannot be maintained (i.e. due to economic crisis, etc.)

And as a global comment: Are you sure that M. sacchariflorum is the unique and main species displacing P. neurophyllum?. I suspect that the absence of this species into the two Phragmites-dominated communities, could be also an effect of a former displacement, due that Phragmites individuals develop a very strong competition for most helophytes, and in fact, probably can eliminate former groups of P. neurophyllum or other non-competitive species in faster times. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript by Hwan Joon Park et al. entitled “Flora and Vegetation Characteristics of the Natural Habitat of the Endangered Plant Pterygopleurum neurophyllum” reports on a study of the ecology of Pterygopleurum neurophyllum which is a very important species for conservation purposes. The study involves the analyses of different plant communities occurring along the river banks carried out with the phytosociological methods in order to describe the ecology of these communities and in particular that one hosting Pterygopleurum neurophyllum. The final aim is to understand the auto ecology of this plant and the environmental features of its habitat.

On the whole, the manuscript reads quite well, even if a language revision is strongly recommended. The arguments are clearly presented and deeply discussed. The statistical analyses carried out on the phytosociological surveys are correct even if not complete. The content of the tables is not always clear and more details are needed (see comments below).

All things considered, I think that this manuscript is suitable for publication in MDPI Diversity once the Authors will have addressed the comments below.

Specific comments

Keywords: as keywords are used for indexing, I suggest deleting words already contained in the title such as “vegetation” and “Pterygopleurum neurophyllum” and replace them with others most closely matching the content of the article (for example, auto ecology, phyosociological method, life forms, ecological traits  etc).

Section 1 (Introduction)

On the whole, literature reference is very poor in the first part of the introduction. Some citation are needed:

Line 35-36 pag. 1: support the statement quoting a reference

Line 37-38 pag. 1: cite who suggested

Line 40-43 pag. 2: cite source

Line 46-49 pag. 2: cite source

Line 84 pag. 2: please change “liver” into “river”

 

Section 2.2 (Survey and analysis)

In general, I feel that statistical analyses carried out are poor. I suggest to try other methods such as: PCA, Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA), Indicator species analysis in order to find the exclusive (faithful) plant species of each community.

Line 144-147 of page 8: please, explain why you did phytosociologica relevés on square of 4 m² for herbaceous communities and 25m² for woody community. Indeed, the phytosocioloical method foresees that the dimensions of the survey area are established on the basis of the principle of “minimum area”. Therefore, the dimensions of the survey area are not established a priori. If you have followed another method involving such dimensions, it would be useful to mention it.

Line 151 of page 8: please, cite the reference of the classification method used.

 

Section 3.2

Table 3: in the legend G (geophyte) are cited but this life form does not occur in the table. Why? Geophyte are very important and frequent in wet environments.

(legend of table 3) Please, explain why you consider Megaphanerophyte as a dormancy form. Generally, Megaphaenorophytes are hemicryptophytes.

(legend of table 3): in the legend, the definition of Th(w) is missing. Please, add it.

(legend of table 3): please, explain what are “plant with rhizomatous mutation of R₂ and R₃ or R₁ and R₂”

Line 227 pag 8: please change “elect” into “erect”

According to Raunkiaer classification, the two life forms typical of wet habitats are: Helophytes and Hydrophytes. Why you did not consider them?

Lines 238-239: you say that Miscanthus sacchariflorus and Phragmites communis are hemicriptophytes. I think that they are geophyte as they have rhizomes. Please, check.

Line 246, pag. 9: please, explain what “semi-central plants” are.

 

Section 3.3

Tab. 4: please, specify that numbers reported for each species are r-NCD values.

Tab. 4: what does the first column refer to?

Tab. 4: second line: “Number of community”. I think it would be better to replace with “Number of phytosociological relevé”

Tab 4: first column. Please, specify what do H, T2 an S mean

Lines 304-305, page 11 “It was different from the distribution of the Phragmites communis community”. Please, explain or clarify what the differences are.

 

Section 3.4

Lines 339-341: you say: “Although Pterygopleurum neurophyllum was not observed in the Phragmites communis community, it is assumed that it could grow in it.” I disagree with this statement. Indeed, along the rivers, the dynamic processes are very fast and the occurrence of Phragmites communis always indicates a burial in progress. This normally occurs in areas that have not been flooded for some time. In these reeds, it is difficult for other plants to enter.

Table 5: please separate A-1 from A-2 with a line. Furthermore, please indicate that in this table, numbers in the lines refer to phytosociological value (indicating coverage).

Line 387-389: you wrote: “Pterygopleurum neurophyllum was distributed in the area where the Miscanthus sacchariflorus community was rather weak and it distributed sporadically in individual units” but looking to table 5 it does not seem like that given that the coverage (7-8) and r-NCD are always high. Please, rewrite this sentence.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

 

The paper was substancially improved.

I attached my last revision with only minorr erros marked.

Congratulations.

Best regards.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I edit all errors.

Thank you for your  opinion