Diversity of the Pteridoflora of Montane Northwestern Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a checklist that provides a worthy reference and advance in Mexican fern biogeography. It is very accessible for a reader not familiar with Mexican geography and biogeography. I recommend the article be published following addressing the following points. My main concern currently are issues in how the conservation status of the species are presented. In one part of the article mention is given to several species be worthy of being recognised as threatened under IUCN criteria and yet these species do not appear in Table 3 that lists threatened species. I was quite confused with this conservation assessment part of the study and I think it needs to be better clarified. I mention some ways that I think these could be overcome among the points made with reference to their lines below. I also list numerous small changes that I think would make the article easier to read and improve the grammar.

I also think that more discussion could be given to the diversity of Pteridaceae in the SMOc compared to the other families. The numbers given show Pteridaceae to be around 4 times more diverse than the next most diverse family. I find this to be an extraordinary result that isn’t given the attention that it deserves. I don’t think there would be any other mountains outside of Mexico that would 1) have such a high diversity of Pteridaceae compared to other fern families or 2) have a diversity in a fern family that is much more diverse than all other fern families present to this extent. I think looking into this and presenting these comparisons would be interesting and worthwhile. Then provide an explanation for why Pteridaceae would display these trends: The Cheilanthoids comprise several separate lineages in the region (Argyrochosma, Gaga, Myriopteris, Notholaena and Pellaea) are not each others closest relatives) that each underwent species radiations to occupy xeric niches that are diverse in the SMOc (e.g. Kirkpatrick R.E.B. 2007 Investigating the monophyly of Pellaea (Pteridaceae) in the context of a phylogenetic analysis of Cheilanthoid ferns. Systematic Botany 32: 504–518.). This coupled with the low diversity in other families that generally have higher diversity in higher rainfall regions makes the Pteridaceae number much higher than other families.

Line 16: compilates to compiles

Line 21: more to most, richest-in-species to species-rich

Line 25: I think the wording needs to change slightly here to say that the species are listed as threatened under IUCN classification.

Line 93: What does main elevations mean? Is this supposed to be the highest points along the range? If so they should be referred to as the highest points.

Line 117: 312 species is still many species for one mountain range. I recommend rewording it does not hold a high representation of species to it does not harbour as great a diversity as the wetter Mexican mountains.

Line 118: The leaf litter doesn’t exclude fern establishment at all times. 168 species were listed as terrestrial (line 267).

Line 121: I think and foothills is unnecessarily repeated here.

Line 130: I don’t understand what is meant by steep to steep should this be ridge to ridge, slope to slope. I think it should be a noun rather than an adjective like steep.

Line 136: I recommend rearranging the sentence order to: Two mega-centers of diversity are recognized in the SMOc, one in the northern part and the other in the high basin of the San Pedro Mezquital River.

Line 162: I don’t follow what is trying to be said here.

Line 171: In the final checklist, the classification given follows PPG 1.

Line 217: Change Three of them are more diverse to The three most diverse genera are:

Line 220: I think i.e. should be put in front of the list of genera if all are listed. e.g. if a sample are listed.

Line 228: I think appropriate is a better word here than proper.

Line 238: I don’t understand what respected means here. I recommend a more another word be  used or the sentence reworded.

Table 3. I don’t understand how most of these species are listed here as threatened species. Perhaps a better title for this table would be conservation status of species? It seems that 16 of them are placed in this table based on a LC IUCN category. This is least concern and (not less concern as is mentioned in line 247) and is one of the categories that is not a threatened category. Why are the other species not given a LC category here? Is it because there is insufficient information on the population sizes, threats, and distribution to make such an assessment? Is this what line 249 is trying to say? For inclusion of all species you could give the rest of the species the category of DD data deficient if there is insufficient information to assess their conservation status.

Line 256: change more significant to greater.

Line 259: What is meant by endemic and restricted endemic here? In the methods there was a division into endemic to Mexico, endemic to SMOc and endemic to SMOc and neighbouring USA. Does endemic here fit into one of these categories? Or is it endemic to a state? It would be really helpful here if it mentioned endemic to…..

Line 292: There seems to be a space that should be deleted before 3950.

Line 322: change to: Recent studies considered that 1043 species of ferns and lycophytes occur in Mexico.

Line 334: Perhaps replace , where ferns and lycophytes are included with respect to fern and lycopod diversity.

Line 339: What does the same occurs with the Selaginella species mean? It is unclear at the moment. Is it that most of the diversity in Selaginella species occurs on the eastern slopes too? If so you could reword it to Selaginella is also most diverse on this eastern slope.

Line 342: relocate well-represented to after Pellaea.

Line 371: what is a restricted endemic? I think you can just delete restricted here.

Line 372: All binomials need to be italicised here.

Line 374: habitat and sensitive need to change order.

Line 376: If those species fall into a IUCN threatened species category why are they not listed in table 3?

Line 423: change weathers to weather

Line 428: cite 82 here as well

Line 435: elsewhere in the paper club mosses are referred to as lycopods. I think it is better to use lycopods here.

Line 477: above average diversity compared to other Mexican mountains ranges

Line 485: biological wealth

Author Response

See the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor, 

I have reviewed the current MS. The authors provided and updated the checklist of ferns and lycophytes from Mexico. This MS is quite well prepared including a basic analysis of floristic works and a complete checklist with additional information for each species. I did not find any serious parts in the whole text. My final decision is Accepted after minor revisions. 

I have found a few corrections which are given in the pdf version.

Best regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Rebuttal

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Introduction: the authors consider that there is scarce information for pteridophytas from Sierra Madre Occidental. However, there is available information on herbaria and previous studies. I understand that the main concern here is that information is scattered. I think that should be clearer in this section: the authors unified previous knowledge in a review and update floristic information.

Methods:

Line 117. What does it mean “it does not hold a high representation of ferns and lycophytes”? Few species or low abundance?

Line 152-153. Where are this poorly collected areas? You can include the name of localities or the area.

Line 166. What is this study for all the readers that are not involved in this subject? It is a taxonomic or a floristic study?

Line 190-193. I suggest the authors to explain more about this method. What was the size of the area/pixels to compare the richness among different regions? Did you use R or GISs for this? This is important for the readers to understand more about this method, and to reproduce this method in other areas.

Results:

I suggest that figure and table size could match the borders of the paragraphs.

Line 228. The richness is relatively low if you consider one area or another. Which are the areas that the authors compare?

If you compare with other areas within Mexico, the richness is low. But I suggest to not diminish in the manuscript the great diversity of ferns from Sierra Madre Occidental, especially if you compare with other areas out of Mexico.

If you compare with BCNS and La Giganta, the species richness of this area is higher.

Lines 278-282. The elevation paragraph needs more information, since this is relevant for comparisons with many other areas. Could the authors include the relationship between elevation vs each life form (terrestrial, epiphytic species, etc.)? How the patterns in figure 4 is biased towards elevations with more collections?

There is a space in line 292.

Discussion: it is well written and easy to read, but most references are local. For international readers it would be better to read about comparisons with different areas of the world. You can compare your patterns on diversity vs elevation with other studies. For example, for epiphytic ferns: Ceballos, S. J. (2022). Vascular epiphytes in Argentinian Yungas: distribution, diversity, and ecology. The Botanical Review, 1-23.

 

Author Response

Rebuttal

Author Response File: Author Response.docx