Threatened Trees Characteristic of Mexican Tropical Montane Cloud Forests

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article “Threatened trees characteristic of Mexican tropical montane cloud forests” deals with a group of tree species that are endangered in the mountains of Mexico. Overall, this article presents new information and ideas, however, it needs some clarification and the addition of more information so that it can be published in the journal Diversity.

The Introduction is objective but short. I think it would be important to refer to old studies on plant threats and reinforce the importance of updating existing information. Why do the authors only focus on cloud forests? Perhaps some climatic aspects need to be added.

The objectives are relevant and ambitious.

The Methodology should be clearer regarding the criteria used by the authors to select the trees for this study. How was the rarity criterion applied? How did you exclude the remaining trees? The rest of the methodology seems adequate to the objectives of the article.

Line 151 – “Temperate climate”? In the case of ecological aspects of flora, I suggest that authors follow the bioclimatic classification of the world published in: “Rivas Martínez, S., Rivas Sáenz, S. & Penas A.M. (2011). Worldwide bioclimatic classification system. Global Geobotany, Vol. 1: 1-634 + 4 maps. DOI: 10.5616/gg110001.”

The Results topic is well developed and presents the information clearly. I agree with Table 2, but I think it would be useful to add a new column where the authors suggest changing the IUCN category. Otherwise, this article does not reach the previously defined objectives. Alternatively, they can add a new table to the Discussion. The category change must be accompanied by a justification and, if possible, the criteria used within the IUCN assessment.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presented for review addresses the issue of threatened trees characteristic of Mexican tropical montane cloud forests. This topic fits in with the subject of the journal and the section and special issue selected by the Authors. Research related to the protection of biodiversity, including trees, is very important. Especially nowadays, they are very popular.

The manuscript requires minor editing and linguistic corrections - some of which are indicated in the text

Notes to the manuscript:

1) The abstract is communicative, however, it requires minor corrections and additions (marked in the text).

2) Introduction: are there any studies on spatial studies of tree species in the Mexican TMCF? Are these the first such studies? This issue should be supplemented in the text.

3) Material and Methods: specific examples of sources of information should be provided - e.g. which herbaria (location, responsible institution); what specialized literature (on what basis it was classified as specialized literature; how the Authors obtained it, what were the selection criteria); virtual specimens - examples. The method of performing botanical field surveys should be described in detail. It is desirable to present methods (particularly for spatial research) in the form of a diagram.

4) Results: is communicative, however, it requires adding statistical analyses.

5) Discussion and Conclusions: a reference to a worldwide situation on a similar topic should be added.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors read and changed the document according to the proposed suggestions, which significantly improved its quality. All questions were answered correctly. So, as I have no more questions to ask, I consider that the article "Threatened trees characteristic of Mexican tropical montane cloud forests" can continue with the process for publication in the journal Diversity.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors revised the manuscript as suggested by the reviewers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf