Rapidly Evaluating Species at Risk Using Endemic Plants of Kosrae, Federated States of Micronesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments（Manuscript ID: diversity-3136618）:

Due to the lack of data and the difficulty of investigation, nowadays little is known about the endangered status and endangered category of many vascular plants in the Pacific islands. Because of lacking insufficient research and related data, at present it seems unlikely to directly apply one or more of the five IUCN endangerment criteria to evaluate these species’ endangered status. In this study, based on the herbarium records and recent survey data, the authors assessed the extinction risk of 19 vascular plant species of on the island Kosrae, Federated States of Micronesia, which provides important references for the priority conservation and conservation management of these endangered plants. More importantly, in combination with ArcGIS, digital elevation model and related herbarium data, the authors propose a new species risk assessment approach, namely Extent of Inhabitable Elevation of Island Occurrence (EIEIO). Such an alternative approach offers a new possibility for assessing the endangered status of limited or endemic vascular plant species on Pacific islands where the available data are scarce. This is particularly the case at small of local island in the Pacific Ocean.

However, there are several major concerns about the current manuscript.

1.      In view of the fact that the current 19 plant species are usually endemic or seldom have been studied, I suggest that the authors, if possible, provide several plant photos for some of these 19 plant species in the manuscript.

2.      The authors have coined the EIEIO method in this study for the first time. it is suggested that the authors should have a more in-depth discussion in the section of discussion, especially for its practicality and efficiency. For example, I recommend that the authors consider comparing and discussing this new method with other alternative or improved other methods in the IUCN Red List assessment which have been reported in published papers. In doing so, they may highlight the significance of this work.

3.      On Line 229, the legend is missing in Figure 1? What does the red color mean in Figure 1? What does the black color mean in Figure 1? The same is in Figure 2 on Line 246, in Figure 3 on Line 275, in Figure 4 on Line 288, in Figure 5 on Line 311, in Figure 6 on Line 326.

Alternatively, I suggest the authors consider merging Figures 1 through 6 to form a single graph (panel) with six smaller graphs.

4.      On Line 56-57, “…, is the most appropriate method for assessment as adequate population biology data is rarely available for plant species.” References (i.e. Citations) should be provided herein.

5.      On Line 139-140, “…, collections as high risk of extinction, low risk of extinction, and high risk of extinction due to lack of data.” These words such as “high risk of extinction” appear twice in this sentence. Redundant? Please check it.

Author Response

Comments 1:   In view of the fact that the current 19 plant species are usually endemic or seldom have been studied, I suggest that the authors, if possible, provide several plant photos for some of these 19 plant species in the manuscript.

Response 1:  We agree with this comment and have added pictures of several of the species.  The photos of Cyrtrandra kusiamontana, Medinilla diversifolia, Pandanus kusaicolus, and Psychotria kosraensis and figure captions were added on pages 8, 10, 11, and 12 respectively.  

 

Comment 2:  The authors have coined the EIEIO method in this study for the first time. it is suggested that the authors should have a more in-depth discussion in the section of discussion, especially for its practicality and efficiency. For example, I recommend that the authors consider comparing and discussing this new method with other alternative or improved other methods in the IUCN Red List assessment which have been reported in published papers. In doing so, they may highlight the significance of this work.

Response 2:  We agree and appreciate this comment.   There are more rapid assessement methods being developed, which this isn't meant to compete with, but complement.  We have included the following text from lines 474 to 482: "While elevational range is but one of the determining factors of the niche of a species, it is easier to collect than some of the other microclimate factors like soil type, rainfall, and aspect.  Utilizing this methodology could be used to supplement other rapid assessment methodologies that are being developed for larger scale areas (25), and provides an additionally type of opportunistic data that can be used for determining species that should be evaluated for threat, ultimately by the IUCN (26). The more tools we have available to assess plants at risk will be important if we are to assist in Red List assessments, we need to provide methods that will support the IUCN assessors with easy to use, appropriate techniques to prioritize assessments.  "

Comment 3:   On Line 229, the legend is missing in Figure 1? What does the red color mean in Figure 1? What does the black color mean in Figure 1? The same is in Figure 2 on Line 246, in Figure 3 on Line 275, in Figure 4 on Line 288, in Figure 5 on Line 311, in Figure 6 on Line 326.

Alternatively, I suggest the authors consider merging Figures 1 through 6 to form a single graph (panel) with six smaller graphs.

Response 3:  We realize that this information was mistakenly left out, and we have added that information to the figure description.  We have also combined the figures into a single figure with multiple panels.  Changes were made in each of the species descriptions to reflect that update.

Comment 4:    On Line 56-57, “…, is the most appropriate method for assessment as adequate population biology data is rarely available for plant species.” References (i.e. Citations) should be provided herein.

Response 4:  We agree and have included the citation for the Brummit et al reference [2], and added an intext citation [8] to a reference of Willis et al. Definining a role for herbarium data in Red list assessments.

Comment 5: On Line 139-140, “…, collections as high risk of extinction, low risk of extinction, and high risk of extinction due to lack of data.” These words such as “high risk of extinction” appear twice in this sentence. Redundant? Please check it.

Response 5:  This does seem redundant, but there are three categories we evaluated the plants into, we have reordered them, numbered them, to reflect a difference.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

This article concerns “Rapidly Evaluating Species at Risk Using Endemic Plants of Kosrae, Federated States of Micronesia, by Wayne Law, Megan Chellew, Kenneth R. Wood, David Lorence, Carlos Cianchini, and Jacob Sanney. As interesting and rare data I recommend it for an international audience in this journal, however several points have to be considered by the authors and a major revision is requested.

 

Please notice that in order to bring a broad audience to this article and to this journal, for specialists and non-specialists, the 4 major points of my comments (at the beginning) are very important (mandatory…) for a suitable value of the article. Minor points are also enhanced at the end of this review.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

The 4 major points are (the three first ones being more or less connected):

1-1     The calculation of EIEIO, which is apparently a new metric (and the allied notion of risk), need to be more explained as in the present text it is very obscure even in the methods, for instance please take an example; precise comparisons with UICN are welcome as the present version is too synthetized and generalized. It is the same for the definition of elevation which is apparently used in various meanings. Among remarks, I am surprised that apparently the main feature seems to be the altitude (?) of the localities, what about soil data, humidity, sun or shade, temperature…

 

2-2     According to the results, as population (size... and others, population is a whole and very complex concept) is not precisely evaluated in all cases this term cannot be enhanced like this.

 

 

3-3     In the discussion, since "a continuing decline in the number of mature individuals" and "a continuing decline in quality of habitat" are not sustained with precise evaluations, it is not understandable.

 

 

4-     References already taken in account by the authors are of interest, however checking briefly in web of science WOS and scilit (from mdpi) with some key-words of this manuscript, other references appear, and they should be updated and used (if relevant…) in order to sustain much more and provide a larger view of these researches. Among these are the followings:

 

[1-8]

 

1.         Cole, T.G.; Ewel, K.C.; Devoe, N.N. Structure of mangrove trees and forests in Micronesia. Forest Ecology and Management 1999, 117.

 

2.         Ewel, K.C. Mangrove seedling measurements at Kosrae, Federated States of Micronesia. 2022.

 

3.         Ewel, K.C.; Baldwin, J. Long-term patterns of growth and survival of mangrove seedlings in Micronesia. Hydrobiologia 2024, 851.

 

4.         Fujimoto, K.; Watanabe, S.; Ono, K.; Furukawa, K. The Present and Future of Micronesian Mangrove Forests in the Context of Rising Sea Levels; 2024.

 

5.         Krauss, K.W.; Cahoon, D.R.; Allen, J.A.; Ewel, K.C.; Lynch, J.C.; Cormier, N. Surface Elevation Change and Susceptibility of Different Mangrove Zones to Sea-Level Rise on Pacific High Islands of Micronesia. Ecosystems 2010, 13.

 

6.         Krauss, K.W.; Keeland, B.D.; Allen, J.A.; Ewel, K.C.; Johnson, D.J. Effects of Season, Rainfall, and Hydrogeomorphic Setting on Mangrove Tree Growth in Micronesia. Biotropica 2007, 39.

 

7.         Pinzón, Z.S.; Ewel, K.C.; Putz, F.E. Gap formation and forest regeneration in a Micronesian mangrove forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 2003, 19.

 

8.         Pouteau, R.; Giambelluca, T.W.; Ah‐Peng, C.; Meyer, J.Y. Will climate change shift the lower ecotone of tropical montane cloud forests upwards on islands? Journal of Biogeography 2018, 45.

 

 

 

Minor points are:

1 A nice aerial photo of this island enhancing its geography is necessary, also a figure with the photos of each of all these rare plants involved in this paper is an excellent opportunity to reveal them to readers.

 

 

2 Restrict the results parts to only raw results and remove all sentences belonging actually to the discussion part (especially the ends of each subpart of the results).

 

 

3 In the introduction, "evaluation of "the where" organisms can occur is not understandable.

 

4 In the introduction, put [   ] instead of (   ) for the part of sentence "(i.e., Syzygium 82 stelechanthum (Diels), Glassman (Myrtaceae), Piper ponapense C. DC. (Piperaceae))".

 

5 At the end of the introduction, put GIS and EOO in full letters.

 

6 For table 1, the first line contains words cut in pieces, enlarge the size of the columns or reduce the size of the letters. In order to be read rapidly, put EIEIO in full letters.

 

7 In 3.3.1 add an “i” for Robiqutia.

 

8 For figure 1 and others, in order to be read rapidly, put EIEIO in full letters in a caption just below.

 

9 In 3.3. 7, put Psychotria in italics.

 

10 As I am involved in plant taxonomy and I am very sensible to correct plant taxa names which make their homogeneity and precision at the international level. In this respect the names of the author(s) (not in italics) have to be inserted (at least) the first time they appear in the text (from the beginning of the introduction, the whole text has to be revised carefully as there are some mistakes). Use international Plant Names Index (IPNI) https://www.ipni.org/ or equivalent.

 

Author Response

Comment 1: The calculation of EIEIO, which is apparently a new metric (and the allied notion of risk), need to be more explained as in the present text it is very obscure even in the methods, for instance please take an example; precise comparisons with UICN are welcome as the present version is too synthetized and generalized. It is the same for the definition of elevation which is apparently used in various meanings. Among remarks, I am surprised that apparently the main feature seems to be the altitude (?) of the localities, what about soil data, humidity, sun or shade, temperature…

Response 1:  Thank you for expressing this is not clear.  We have tried to clarify this by including that for the EOO measurement "this could still provide an artificially higher evaluation of the extent of which an organisms can occur. For example, an EOO measurement could include habitat areas like beaches or mangroves, for species that occur in tropical forest. " on lines 76-78.  Additionally, we included from lines 110-115: To assess plants at risk and conservation priorities, more information can provide us accurate and robust recommendations.  However, for some plant species, only information such as locality (latitude, longitude and, elevation) might be available.  Because topographical factors are tied to the ranges of plant populations (15), and are easier to obtain that soil data, aspect, and other environmental factors, we propose the use of a rapid assessment methodology that includes species elevational range.  To show that elevation could be utilized to identify restricted habitats.

Comment 2: According to the results, as population (size... and others, population is a whole and very complex concept) is not precisely evaluated in all cases this term cannot be enhanced like this.

Response 2:  Incorrect representation of the population was overlooked, after careful re-examination of the manuscript, we found it was incorrectly used on line 213, and that was replaced with "individual".  Other uses of population in the manuscript seem to be properly used and distinguished.  While numbers of individuals are not calculated in most populations, we are classifying populations in other instances of this manuscript as potential interbreeding individuals.

Comment 3: In the discussion, since "a continuing decline in the number of mature individuals" and "a continuing decline in quality of habitat" are not sustained with precise evaluations, it is not understandable.

Response 3:  We understand the reviewer as we have not explained why we observe a continuing decline in the number of mature individuals.  We clarified this in the text, but first adding that species do not cover every point of that IUCN criteria for Critically Endangered, was not necessarily met, that species are declining in number of individuals due to our ability to locate some species, and we removed decline in quality of habitat as this was not something we measured.  

Comment 4: 

References already taken in account by the authors are of interest, however checking briefly in web of science WOS and scilit (from mdpi) with some key-words of this manuscript, other references appear, and they should be updated and used (if relevant…) in order to sustain much more and provide a larger view of these researches. Among these are the followings:

[1-8]

8. Cole, T.G.; Ewel, K.C.; Devoe, N.N. Structure of mangrove trees and forests in Micronesia. Forest Ecology and Management 1999, 117.
9. Ewel, K.C. Mangrove seedling measurements at Kosrae, Federated States of Micronesia. 2022.
10. Ewel, K.C.; Baldwin, J. Long-term patterns of growth and survival of mangrove seedlings in Micronesia. Hydrobiologia 2024, 851.
11. Fujimoto, K.; Watanabe, S.; Ono, K.; Furukawa, K. The Present and Future of Micronesian Mangrove Forests in the Context of Rising Sea Levels; 2024.
12. Krauss, K.W.; Cahoon, D.R.; Allen, J.A.; Ewel, K.C.; Lynch, J.C.; Cormier, N. Surface Elevation Change and Susceptibility of Different Mangrove Zones to Sea-Level Rise on Pacific High Islands of Micronesia. Ecosystems 2010, 13.
13. Krauss, K.W.; Keeland, B.D.; Allen, J.A.; Ewel, K.C.; Johnson, D.J. Effects of Season, Rainfall, and Hydrogeomorphic Setting on Mangrove Tree Growth in Micronesia. Biotropica 2007, 39.
14. Pinzón, Z.S.; Ewel, K.C.; Putz, F.E. Gap formation and forest regeneration in a Micronesian mangrove forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 2003, 19.
15. Pouteau, R.; Giambelluca, T.W.; Ah‐Peng, C.; Meyer, J.Y. Will climate change shift the lower ecotone of tropical montane cloud forests upwards on islands? Journal of Biogeography 2018, 45.

Response 4:  Thank you for this suggestion, while these are pertinent articles to research on Kosrae, all but the last one are focused on the research in the Mangroves, of which there are no endemic species in Kosrae and because of that were not a focus of this study.  We did include a citation for the last suggested reference, "Will climate change sift the lower ecotone..." on line 80, as climate change is a threat to these islands upland forests where many of these endemic species live.

Minor Comment 1: A nice aerial photo of this island enhancing its geography is necessary, also a figure with the photos of each of all these rare plants involved in this paper is an excellent opportunity to reveal them to readers.

Response Minor Comment 1:  We agree a photo showing the geography would enhance this manuscript.  We have added a, image on page 3, included a caption, and adjusted the following figure captions.  We have included as well, images for several of the species.  The photos of Cyrtrandra kusiamontana, Medinilla diversifolia, Pandanus kusaicolus, and Psychotria kosraensis and figure captions were added on pages 8, 10, 11, and 12 respectively.  

Minor comment 2: Restrict the results parts to only raw results and remove all sentences belonging actually to the discussion part (especially the ends of each subpart of the results).

Valuable recognition, thank you for noticing that.  For Elatostema fenkolense, we have taken the line, ". However, given that this species is only known from two specimens despite potentially being distributed throughout the island, increased efforts to voucher these species are necessary to understand the species relationships, locations of the species, and size of the population" and added to the discussion, "Elatostema fenkolense is only known from two specimens despite potentially being distributed throughout the island; increased efforts to voucher these species are necessary to understand the species relationships, locations of the species, and size of the population "  For Selginella, we have removed, "It is unclear if this pattern is based on lack of representation in populations or if they are truly different species. The species delimitations and species concepts of these two species are poorly understood and require further study [14]. " and put in the discussion beginning on line 435 "Selaginella kusaiensis and Elatostema fenkolense, which we were able to calculate an EIEIO, need further investigation.  It is unclear if the pattern of Selaginella collection is based on lack of representation in populations or if they are truly different species. The species delimitations and species concepts of these two species are poorly understood and require further study [14]. "

Minor comment 3: In the introduction, "evaluation of "the where" organisms can occur is not understandable.

Response to Minor comment 3:  We understand where this is confusing so we have changed line 76 to read " higher evaluation of the extent of which which an organisms can occur." 

Minor comment 4:  In the introduction, put [   ] instead of (   ) for the part of sentence "(i.e., Syzygium 82 stelechanthum (Diels), Glassman (Myrtaceae), Piper ponapense C. DC. (Piperaceae))".

 

Reply to Minor Comment 4: We believe this reviewer is referring to the family names, and because of it, has been changed to:  "(i.e., Syzygium 82 stelechanthum (Diels), Glassman [Myrtaceae], Piper ponapense C. DC. [Piperaceae])" on lines 83-84.

Minor comment 5: At the end of the introduction, put GIS and EOO in full letters.

Reply to minor comment 5:  Thank you for noting that GIS had not been written out by line 110.  It has been written out Geographical Information System (GIS) tools on line 110.  EOO has been previously defined so we feel does not need to be written out at this point. 

Minor comment 6:  For table 1, the first line contains words cut in pieces, enlarge the size of the columns or reduce the size of the letters. In order to be read rapidly, put EIEIO in full letters.

Response to Minor comment 6:  We agree the wording is less appealing cut in pieces, but it would be difficult to format this differently, unless maybe during the final editing process, this table could be put into landscape?  I do not know if this is possible, and hope the editors can answer this.  EIEIO has been written out in the table description. 

Minor comment 7: In 3.3.1 add an “i” for Robiqutia.

Response to minor comment 7:  Thank you for catching that misspelling, we added an "e" for the correct "Robiquetia"

Minor comment 8:  For figure 1 and others, in order to be read rapidly, put EIEIO in full letters in a caption just below.

Response to minor comment 8:  This has been written out in the figure description, but because of another reviewers recommendation, all of the graphs showing EIEIO have been combined to one panel.

 

Minor comment 9: In 3.3. 7, put Psychotria in italics.

Response to minor comment 9:  Thank you for catching that, Psychotria on line 368 has been italicized.

Minor comment 10:  As I am involved in plant taxonomy and I am very sensible to correct plant taxa names which make their homogeneity and precision at the international level. In this respect the names of the author(s) (not in italics) have to be inserted (at least) the first time they appear in the text (from the beginning of the introduction, the whole text has to be revised carefully as there are some mistakes). Use international Plant Names Index (IPNI) https://www.ipni.org/ or equivalent.

Response to minor comment 10:  Thank you for noting our error, we have added the author names to" Agrostphyllum kusaiensie", Bulbophyllum fukuyamae, B. kusaiense, Elaphoglssum kusaiense, Psychotria hosokawae, Selaginella kusaiensis, Rhynchophreatia pacific and Robiquetia kusaiensis on pages 178-181

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I read with pleasure this new version, however still few points have to be considered:

-for the figures added, indicate even approximately the scale bar directly on the photo, it is much more rapid to evaluate for the reader;

- for my minor comment 4, there is apparently a mistake as I asked to change the (i.e  Piperaceae)) for [i.e  Piperaceae)], since within these [] there are some (), see with the editor formats; moreover I do not understand the use of [] for the family names, see with the editor formats;

-for my minor comment 6, see with the editor as it is visually quite important.

Very sincerely yours,

Author Response

Comment 1:  for the figures added, indicate even approximately the scale bar directly on the photo, it is much more rapid to evaluate for the reader;

Response to comment 1:  We thank the reviewer for this comment, and we would like to add scale bars to the all of the pictures of plants, but given the 3-dimensional pictures, we think that a scale bar could be misleading.  For figure five, we updated the image so that it includes a scale because this picture was taken on a flat surface.   

Comment 2:  for my minor comment 4, there is apparently a mistake as I asked to change the (i.e  Piperaceae)) for [i.e  Piperaceae)], since within these [] there are some (), see with the editor formats; moreover I do not understand the use of [] for the family names, see with the editor formats

Response to comment 2:  Thank you for clarifying.  The text has been updated to read:  “area [i.e., Syzygium stelechanthum (Diels), Glassman (Myrtaceae), Piper ponapense C. DC. (Piperaceae)].”

Comment 3:-for my minor comment 6, see with the editor as it is visually quite important.

Response to comment 3:  Great point again, and table 1 has been updated on the manuscript that that is it oriented landscape to see the text more easily.

Thank you for your extremely important comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx