Habitat Suitability, Population Structure and Conservation Status of Pinanga arinasae (Arecaceae), an Endemic Palm in Bali Island, Indonesia
, Joko Ridho Witono 1, Inggit Puji Astuti 1, Esti Munawaroh 1, Yuzammi 1, Izu Andry Fijridiyanto 1, Rizmoon Nurul Zulkarnaen 1, Iyan Robiansyah 1, Puguh Dwi Raharjo 2 and Wendell P. Cropper, Jr. 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Very important topic, well-designed experiment. Writing needs to be improved throughout. There are numerous examples of fragmented sentences or awkward wording that make the paragraphs difficult to get through, or understand what you are trying to say. I suggest you find an English-proficient colleague who can assist with re-working the sentence structure. The following are a few examples:
- Sentences should not begin with an abbreviated word, P. arinasae. Spell out the Genus when at beginning of sentence. This sentence also is fragmented and needs to be re-written.
- Previously you list slope as a %, now you use a degree. Choose one measurement style and apply consistently throughout manuscript.
- Spell out “four” instead of the numeral 4. When discussing data points, numerals are expected. But in the course of a sentence like this one, the number should be written out. Apply this rule consistently throughout the manuscript.
- Who are the people/agencies that provided plant inventory data? Is it a govt entity or NGO? Would like more info on that reference.
- “Litter depth in all of the observation plots is…”
- “The direction of the slope…” I do not understand what you are trying to say with this sentence, it needs to be rewritten.
If you can address these issues and improve sentence structure throughout the manuscript, I would recommend it as suitable for publication in Diversity.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Please see the attachment.
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The text is an attempt to address an interesting issue with very interesting field work, which should be commended. Unfortunately, your text is flawed with serious issues in most sections. Sampling design is obscure, measurement methods unclear. The presentation of results is poor: text, figures, and tables all require a major improvement. Most of the discussion is purely speculative. Please see the annotated manuscript, here enclosed, for more details.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Please see the attachment.
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
A nice paper which explores in considerable detail a range of methodologies to determine a conservation status for an endemic palm.
The paper is nicely written, though in places the English needs 'tweaking'.
My main concern is the complete lack of trend data from which a decline rate can be determined.
I don't understand why this was not done and further why no explanation for not doing so was offered.
The palm is ethnobotanically important. I would assume then there is historical observations and herbarium data from which to determine past area of occupancy? Characterisation of the habitat would also allow for predictions of past extent from which a decline rate / tend could be determined.
I have no doubt this species is threatened under IUCN criteria but using two of their criteria in isolation seems a peculiar decision. A narrow range endemic can be secure if the population is stable and this does not mean it is threatened / warranting conservation resourcing, it may simply need monitoring and advocacy to ensure it remains in a stable situation.
In New Zealand we use our own Threat Assessment System for the very reason that IUCN historically did and still does over state threat. In a country full of narrow range endemics it is very important we filter out naturally uncommon taxa from those that are in a genuine decline trajectory. This is to ensure that conservation resources are appropriately allocated.
So I would like to see some comment from the authors in this paper as to why they did not look at decline / trend data. It seems to me a serious omission that erodes my confidence in the conservation assessment they arrived at.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Please see the attachment.
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I congratulate the authors for the revised, improved text. Few issues remain and should be addressed before publication. Please see annotation in the enclosed file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is fine. I consider the changes made acceptable, and the manuscript now suitable for publishing.
Author Response
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript.
