Drivers of Species Distribution and Niche Dynamics for Ornamental Plants Originating at Different Latitudes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title appears ambitious and could definitely be improved upon

My suggestion: 

Drivers of species distribution and niche dynamics for ornamental plants originating at different latitudes

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

I feel the Ms idea is sound, but the Abstract and the Introduction are badly written. My advice is to give the Ms to an editor to improve the constriction and presentations of the English sentences (see my comments and corrections on the PDF of the MS)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the article is interesting, in line with the main idea of the Special Issue. Having examined the manuscript of the article, I can point out a number of serious shortcomings that need to be corrected. 

1. The abstract is not informative enough. It should state the problem, briefly discuss the research methods, the main results obtained and summarise the conclusions. This part of the paper needs to be substantially restructured. 

2. Keywords should also be restructured. What other ornamental plants are there besides "horticultural ornamental plants"?

3. A clear research aim and questions need to be formulated. These important elements are missing from the current version of the manuscript. 

4. The introduction needs to elaborate on the issue at hand, i.e. what is already known about the influence of latitudinal indices of a species' natural range on invasiveness in other areas. How do niches occupied by alien species change in new areas? There has been a great deal of research on these topics and the results are often controversial. The introduction should therefore discuss these issues.  

5. What criteria did the authors use to select the plant species for the study? I missed clear reasoning and motivation in the methodology section. This issue needs to be discussed and a justification for the choice made. Would the results be similar if other species were chosen? 

6. The latitudinal distribution boundaries given in Figure 1 were also questionable. For example, Picea abies has a southern limit of distribution at ca. 37°N and a northern limit of distribution at ca. 69°N, while the main part of the latitudinal distribution is less than 60°N in the graph. Do these initial data not distort the final result of the study?

7. Were the species selected for the study reliably different in their latitudinal distribution? Were the differences verified by statistical methods? Are the groups in Figure 2 statistically different from each other? What are the significance of the differences, if any?

8. What do the lower case letters in Figure 4 mean? Why are they not explained in the figure caption? 

9. The language of the article is quite complicated. There are many unnecessary words that complicate the text and even confuse. For example (line 317), the word "artificial cultivation" is used. Is there natural cultivation? The very word cultivation implies growing under artificial conditions. The entire text of the article needs to be very carefully edited by a professional language editor. The text should also avoid unnecessary information (lines 268, 274, etc.). 

10. What are the values of the factors in Table S2? It should be clear from reading the title of the table, but they are not mentioned.

 

 

 

 

The language of the article is quite complicated. There are many unnecessary words that complicate the text and even confuse.  Extensive editing is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have examined the revised text of the article following the reviews. It has been significantly improved, but there are still some shortcomings. I make some specific comments below. Unfortunately, it is necessary to read the full text very carefully and edit it. In terms of language, the text is mostly correct, but there are inaccuracies in the use of terms and clear logical errors.  It is not possible to point out all of them in the review. 

1. Line 117. 'For species selection, followings were considered'. What is the following: criteria, factors or what?

2. Lines 322-325.  You state: 'artificial environments for horticultural plants so that they can be grown in places where the natural environment is not suitable, and the resulting occurrence data affect species distribution models and ecological niche models built based on natural environmental factors'. Did your original data also include information on indoor plants? If so, this is a serious methodological error. I don't think the distribution of Zantedeschia aethiopica in indoor areas in Norway north of the Arctic Circle can be put into an ecological niche model!  Can the GBIF database really always be trusted, especially when the information comes from many unverified or unreliable sources? 

3. Line 365. You state that 'a large amount of research on plant invasion still focuses mainly on species that naturally invade'. What is your understanding of the term 'natural invasion' or 'natural invader'? What is it? Is it some new concept or just a logical inaccuracy of language?

4. Lines 446-451. The statement that herbaceous plants can be grown indoors is correct. But how does this fact contribute to the understanding of invasions? After all, no one ever evaluates (and I think this is perfectly logical) the ecological niches of plants grown in greenhouses and rooms. Moreover, houseplants are never included in the floras of territories or in lists of alien species. It is necessary to be clear in this case and to make very clear statements. 

5. The redundancies that exist in the discussion and conclusions must be removed. 

 

 

The text is mostly linguistically correct, but there are inaccuracies in the use of terms and clear logical errors occur. Deficiencies in subject logic can only be eliminated by authors who have carefully considered the meaning of terms and the message they wish to convey. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been significantly improved, with most of its previous shortcomings and inaccuracies removed. 

 

It is not completely clear what the authors are trying to emphasise when they say (lines 338-339): 'we cannot determine whether the existence of ornamental plants in new environments is due to their successful invasion or cultivation.'  After all, it has been shown many times that the invasion of ornamental plants is due to the high propagules pressure resulting from cultivation. This issue has been extensively studied and discussed in many papers (e.g. Preslia, 88: 163-184, 2016).  Please note the following statement. 

 

Nevertheless, the authors' misinterpretation of the term 'invasion' must be noted (lines 360-364). How can there be a 'spontaneous invasion' if the invasion is the sudden spread of an alien species? Did the authors intend to distinguish between the invasion of accidentally introduced species and the invasion of purposely introduced species? Or do the authors mean spread due to natural factors (spread as a process but not invasion as a phenomenon)? If the authors want to discuss the spread of native species into anthropogenic habitats, then the term 'invasion' is inappropriate and the phenomenon should be called 'expansion'. This part of the paper needs to be clarified and corrected, otherwise the whole paradigm of the study of biological invasions changes. 

Minor editing (spaces between mathematical signs and digits should be unified)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf