Resistance of Lichens and Mosses of Regenerated Alpine Communities to Repeated Experimental Trampling in the Belianske Tatras, Northern Slovakia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article, titled “Resistance of lichens and mosses of regenerated alpine communities to repeated experimental trampling in the Belianske Tatras, northern Slovakia” explores effects of simulated trampling in three plant communities in a high mountain area. 

The main strength of this paper is that it addresses an interesting and timely issue, however before it can be published, there are some important points that need to be clarified and the article has to be better organised.  

Introduction

Some old statements and reference should be verified (see comments in the pdf).

More information about previous knowledge on cryptogams and trampling would provide welcome context here. It's possible that authors are unaware of some references, here some examples:

·         Bayfield, N. G., U. H. Urquhart, and S. M. Cooper. "Susceptibility of four species of Cladonia to disturbance by trampling in the Cairngorm Mountains, Scotland." Journal of Applied Ecology (1981): 303-310.

·         Rai, Himanshu, D. K. Upreti, and Rajan K. Gupta. "Diversity and distribution of terricolous lichens as indicator of habitat heterogeneity and grazing induced trampling in a temperate-alpine shrub and meadow." Biodiversity and Conservation 21.1 (2012): 97-113.

·         Rawat, Monika, et al. "Visitors off the trail: Impacts on the dominant plant, bryophyte and lichen species in alpine heath vegetation in sub-arctic Sweden." Environmental Challenges 3 (2021): 100050.

·         Ferrenberg, Scott, Sasha C. Reed, and Jayne Belnap. "Climate change and physical disturbance cause similar community shifts in biological soil crusts." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112.39 (2015): 12116-12121.

I advise conducting a thorough literature search on the subject to enhance this section.

I didn't understand the paragraph about lichen growth rate [78-84] in the introduction. If the authors wish to use these concepts to discuss their results they must state this clearly and specify in the materials and methods section how they intend to do it.

Hypothesis and objective can be more clearly stated (see also comments on discussion)

Results

To make reading easier, I recommend to summarize the data using tables and comparisons.

The tables and figures captions are not detailed enough to allow for a full understanding of presented data.

Discussion

The first part of the discussion (568-587) brings back concepts that were already expressed in the introduction and M&M; these ideas should be reworked to connect to the results. Many of this information are best placed to the other sections rather than being presented here.

I would expect a little more explanation of the results in the discussion.  For example: how the trampling is linked to the two period examined? Why do different lichen and moss species react differently to disturbance? It would be very interesting to discuss this aspect in relation to growth forms and ecological requirement of species. Why Alectoria ochroleuca behaved differently in the Junco trifidi-Callunetum vulgaris community?

Authors says: “The statements that abundance of both bryophytes 774 and lichens may be reduced [7,41,59] or increased [20,42], or there may be a delayed reduction in lichen and bryophyte abundance [20], was onfirmed too” I do not understand how this relates to the results or which of the shown hypotheses the authors believe to be valid.

What traits of the newly appeared species impacted their capability for colonisation?

General remarks

I suggest seeking editing help from someone with full professional proficiency in English since faulty construction of sentences and odd usage of expressions, can occasionally make it difficult to grasp what is being said.

I included more specific remarks in the attached pdf

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

thank you very much for your valuable comments. We edited the manuscript as follows:

The bibliography is updated. We added references No 51-66 and 93, 94. We do not deal with grazing, our studied area is not grazed (Rai et al. 2012). Authors in the study (Rawat et al., 2021) studied other species and their claims cannot be generalized.

To the comment: „I didn't understand the paragraph about lichen growth rate [78-84] in the introduction. If the authors wish to use these concepts to discuss their results they must state this clearly and specify in the materials and methods section how they intend to do it.“ Information on lichen growth is needed in relation to species regeneration. We added this information to the discussion (lines 1153 – 1155). However, it is not necessary to mention lichen growth in the Materials and Methods chapter. All changes are expressed by the formula of Cole and Bayfield [78].

To the comment: „To make reading easier, I recommend to summarize the data using tables and comparisons. The tables and figures captions are not detailed enough to allow for a full understanding of presented data.“ Tables in the text, Supplementary files and figures are sufficiently explained, tables, supplementary files and figures are referred to throughout the Results chapter.

The discussion is edited.

To the comment? „Authors says: “The statements that abundance of both bryophytes 774 and lichens may be reduced [7,41,59] or increased [20,42], or there may be a delayed reduction in lichen and bryophyte abundance [20], was onfirmed too” I do not understand how this relates to the results or which of the shown hypotheses the authors believe to be valid.“ All these hypotheses are valid, you can find them in the chapters discussion and conclusion, for example lines 858, 859, 958, 989 ... 1189, 1190. These hypotheses are linked to our results.

To the comment: „What traits of the newly appeared species impacted their capacity for colonisation?“ The colonization process of newly appeared species is one of the delayed responses of lichens that we mention in the discussion (for exapmple lines 1127, 1128). However, we do not know the exact reason for their colonization. The subject of this study was the hypothesis that the regenerated community reacts to trampling differently than the natural community (we trampled natural communities in 2008, and regenerated communities in 2022). This question would be the subject of another, more in-depth study.

According to other reviewer:

For the book "Lichen Biology" by T. Nash III, we used the updated version in the 2008 edition (Ref. 46).

Introduction - we added the text in lines 75 – 92 and references 51-66.

According to your comments, the chapters Results, Discussion and Conclusions have been edited. The Results chapter contains parts: 3.1 Juncetum trifidi community, 3.2 Junco trifidi-Callunetum vulgaris community, 3.3 Seslerietum community and 3.4 Community resistance scheme. From the tables, we retained only Table 4 (Table 1 in this edited manuscript), the other tables are cited in the supplementary material. For individual species, we added the right nomenclature with the names of the authors and, in the case of lichens, the biological form in the Results and Conclusion chapters. We added references No. 93 and 94 to the Discussion chapter.

We plan to use MDPI's author services for proofreading the English language.

 

Yours Sincerely,

Veronika Piscová

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 The authors try to understand how regenerated communities respond to further trampling disturbance, after 14 years, 2008 and 2022, in three high altitude communities in the Tatras, northern Slovakia. This research brings new knowledge about different behaviour of lichens and mosses in the regeneration processes. Results show that human trampling in alpine communities has a large negative impact.

The work is interesting and original, the introduction is well written and provides a good state of the art. However, although there are few studies related to this subject, the bibliography is not well updated. For example, in the case of the book "Lichen Biology" by T. Nash III, they have put the 1996 version and the contents are more updated in the 2008 edition.

The hypotheses and methodology are well stated and referenced. However, the exposition and writing of the results is very complex and difficult to understand. I found it very difficult to read and there are many things mixed and/or repeated.

They continually place the words in every paragraph: species and community behind every name and in every sentence. A few examples:

There are repeats of the same sentence, e.g. lines 255 and 256 are superfluous already put in 251-254. I suggest: start the results with the description of each type of community and then synthetically summarize the I believe that this article provides interesting data that will enable appropriate decisions to be taken in the conservation of European high mountains.

It is true that it requires a new writing of results, discussion and conclusions, as well as an update of the bibliography. But the results are important.  results: put lines 267-269 at the beginning of Communities. Then don't mix data within each community with others, comparisons are for discussion!

The tables are very poorly explained in the text because of the redundancies already explained.

In summary, they have to redraft this chapter and synthesize the contents. The synthesis is very necessary in the individual exposition of the results of each species of lichens and mosses. In addition, they must put the right nomenclature with the names of the authors and, in the case of lichens, put the biological form there and not in the conclusions.

I would only keep Table 4 and Figure 7 (below) in the text and put lines 559- 561 at the beginning of the section. The rest of the tables should go to supplementary material, as the graphs are enough informative.

In the case of the discussion, it is something similar to the results: they need to shorten the contents a lot and do it in an orderly fashion by communities and/or species and without constantly repeating the description of the results.

The same can be applied to the conclusions, synthesize, shorten and do not repeat words since they are consistent with the results and the discussion.

In any case, and although I am not an expert, they should have the English of the manuscript edited by a professional.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

thank you very much for your valuable comments. We edited the manuscript as follows:

The bibliography is updated. We added references No 51-66 and 93, 94.

For the book "Lichen Biology" by T. Nash III, we used the updated version in the 2008 edition (Ref. 46).

Introduction - we added the text in lines 75 – 92 and references No. 51 – 66.

According to your comments, the chapters Results, Discussion and Conclusions have been edited. The Results chapter contains parts: 3.1 Juncetum trifidi community, 3.2 Junco trifidi-Callunetum vulgaris community, 3.3 Seslerietum community and 3.4 Community resistance scheme. From the tables, we retained only Table 4 (Table 1 in this edited manuscript), the other tables are cited in the supplementary material. For individual species, we added the right nomenclature with the names of the authors and, in the case of lichens, the biological form in the Results and Conclusion chapters. We added references No. 93 and 94 to the Discussion chapter.

We plan to use MDPI's author services for proofreading the English language.

 

Yours Sincerely,

Veronika Piscová

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments

 

The paper by Piscová et al. represents a good, comprehensive, interesting and valuable study of the trampling effects on different lichen and mosses communities, and on the response of regenerated communities to further trampling disturbance.

It is clearly written, well referenced and the results are well elaborated and documented.

All aspects are discussed in detail. This study is important for the ongoing discussion on trampling effects on sensitive ecosystems.

I have only few suggestions for revising the manuscript.

 

Specific comments

 

Page 1, line 16. There is a typo. Please replace “aren’t” with “are”.

 

Page 3, line 114. Please specify what are E1 and E0.

 

Page 5, Figure 2. Please specify the meaning of the red and blue lines.

 

Conclusion paragraph. Do authors think the different climatic conditions in 2008 and 2022 could have a role in the different trampling effects on the studied communities?

 

References, line 854. The comma is missing after the author surname.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

thank you very much for your valuable comments. We edited the manuscript as follows:

Lines 16, 114, 854 and Figure 2 are corrected. Different climatic conditions in 2008 and 2022 have a role in the different trampling effects, we added the information in lines 1137-1139.

According to other reviewer:

The bibliography is updated. We added references No 51-66 and 93, 94.

For the book "Lichen Biology" by T. Nash III, we used the updated version in the 2008 edition (Ref. 46).

Introduction - we added the text in lines 75 – 92 and references No. 51 – 66.

According to your comments, the chapters Results, Discussion and Conclusions have been edited. The Results chapter contains parts: 3.1 Juncetum trifidi community, 3.2 Junco trifidi-Callunetum vulgaris community, 3.3 Seslerietum community and 3.4 Community resistance scheme. From the tables, we retained only Table 4 (Table 1 in this edited manuscript), the other tables are cited in the supplementary material. For individual species, we added the right nomenclature with the names of the authors and, in the case of lichens, the biological form in the Results and Conclusion chapters. We added references No. 93 and 94 to the Discussion chapter.

We plan to use MDPI's author services for proofreading the English language.

 

Yours Sincerely,

Veronika Piscová

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

A fine paper which emphasizes the effects of even small extents of trampling on alpine and by inference tundra floras. Should be advanced to everyone involved in protection measures for both mountain areas and Arctic, Antarctic regions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

thank you very much for your great report.

According to other reviewer, we edited the manuscript as follows:

Lines 16, 114, 854 and Figure 2 are corrected. Different climatic conditions in 2008 and 2022 have a role in the different trampling effects, we added the information in lines 1137-1139.

The bibliography is updated. We added references No 51-66 and 93, 94.

For the book "Lichen Biology" by T. Nash III, we used the updated version in the 2008 edition (Ref. 46).

Introduction - we added the text in lines 75 – 92 and references No. 51 – 66.

According to your comments, the chapters Results, Discussion and Conclusions have been edited. The Results chapter contains parts: 3.1 Juncetum trifidi community, 3.2 Junco trifidi-Callunetum vulgaris community, 3.3 Seslerietum community and 3.4 Community resistance scheme. From the tables, we retained only Table 4 (Table 1 in this edited manuscript), the other tables are cited in the supplementary material. For individual species, we added the right nomenclature with the names of the authors and, in the case of lichens, the biological form in the Results and Conclusion chapters. We added references No. 93 and 94 to the Discussion chapter.

We plan to use MDPI's author services for proofreading the English language.

 

Yours Sincerely,

Veronika Piscová

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper can now be published.