Review Reports - The Diversity and Gradient of Sand-Dune Vegetation at Kasatura Bay: A Plant Biodiversity Hotspot in European Türkiye

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a relevant work on biodiversity in coastal dune vegetation, which in general are poorly studied ecosystems. It seems to me a sound work, well reported and analyzed. I have only one observation in the order of the discussion. According to the order of the results, it is more appropriate to start with the current point 4.2 and establish it as 4.1, and reorder the current point 4.1 as 4.2.

Author Response

Comment: This is a relevant work on biodiversity in coastal dune vegetation, which in general are poorly studied ecosystems. It seems to me a sound work, well reported and analyzed. I have only one observation in the order of the discussion. According to the order of the results, it is more appropriate to start with the current point 4.2 and establish it as 4.1, and reorder the current point 4.1 as 4.2.

Response: In the "4.Discussion" section, we arranged the order to be first "4.1. Syntaxonomical assessment" and then "4.2. Ecological interpretation".

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is very important for the reader interested in phytogeography, phytocenology. Present form of the article requires updates.

The most critical remark. The authors note that sandy beaches are a highly mobile ecosystem in time and space. The research was carried out almost 20 years ago (in 2005). How relevant are these studies, especially when it comes to issues of nature conservation and the protection of rare species?

I was surprised that determined plant communities did not record bryophytes, which often play an important role in plant communities on sand dunes in Europe. Were they not present in plant communities or were they not taken into account?

In different sections there are numerous repetitions of statements similar in meaning (for example, lines 53-55, lines 81-83).

In section 4.3. Nature Conservation mentions five endemic species several times (lines 391-399, lines 513-517). It is necessary to talk about them in one place!

It's better not to start a sentence with a number (line 488).

There are no research conclusions. The conclusion is a modified abstract.

In "Results and Discussion" there should be a paragraph on Human impact to vegetation. How strong is this anthropogenic pressure? Need to write more details. In other European dunes the introduction of invasive non-native species is relevant. Is this factor (related to anthropic activities) relevant in the area studied?

Table 1. Needs correction. Now it is very difficult to understand.

Author Response

We thank you very much for taking time to review our manuscript and make comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript. We made the necessary changes according to your valuable comments and suggestions. However, on some points, we made explanations regarding your comments. You can see them below:

Comment: The article is very important for the reader interested in phytogeography, phytocenology. Present form of the article requires updates.

Response: Thank you for drawing attention to this critical statement. Although the dune area sampling in the study was carried out in 2005, the other studies on the vegetation in the area were completed in mid-2010. Since then, we still have different ongoing studies in the region and the area belongs to forest services. Even though people visit the area for recreation purposes forest service still limits for people to access the vegetation-covered area. Therefore, these data still reflect the present conditions of the site. In another words, there have not been a remarkable change in the size of the sand dune area and species diversity of the vegetation. Our recommendation is for the effect of human activities on the vegetation in the long term.

The rare and endemic species mentioned in the study still continue to exist in the dune area. However, the current protection status in the area has not been changed since 2005. Considering the effects of global warming, in the area in long-term planning for the dune area, it is of great importance to take into account the presence of plants and plant communities, and a new association (Sileno thymifoliae - Cionuretum erectae ass. nova) that had described for the first time in this study. Our main purpose in this study is to draw the attention of decision-makers and local people to how this site is important in terms of vegetation diversity.

Comment: I was surprised that determined plant communities did not record bryophytes, which often play an important role in plant communities on sand dunes in Europe. Were they not present in plant communities or were they not taken into account?

Response: We thank you for the comment. We did not make any record on bryophytes during the sampling since Kasatura sand–dune vegetation does not represent any richness in terms of bryophytes. Actually, Thracian coasts along the Black Sea do not include a notable bryophyte diversity as also seen in the other studies carried out in surrounding areas, in which bryophyte records were not also done (please see [16-Kavgacı, 2007] and [4-Tzonev et al., 2005]).

Comment: In different sections there are numerous repetitions of statements similar in meaning (for example, lines 53-55, lines 81-83).

Response: Repetitions were removed from the manuscript.

Comment: In section 4.3. Nature Conservation mentions five endemic species several times (lines 391-399, lines 513-517). It is necessary to talk about them in one place!

Response: About the endemic species in Section 4.3 are mentioned in the only relevant place.

Comment: It's better not to start a sentence with a number (line 488).

Response: Yes, it was corrected.

Comment: There are no research conclusions. The conclusion is a modified abstract.

Response: As suggested, the conclusion has been changed. It can be seen in the manuscript in red colour.

Comment: In "Results and Discussion" there should be a paragraph on Human impact to vegetation. How strong is this anthropogenic pressure? Need to write more details. In other European dunes the introduction of invasive non-native species is relevant. Is this factor (related to anthropic activities) relevant in the area studied?

Response: Observations and evaluations regarding the impact of humans on vegetation and the power of this pressure on plants were added to the last paragraph of the "Results and Discussion" section. The study area is far from the residential area, and there is no non-native invasive species. No anthropic activity related to presence of non-native invasive species has been observed in the area. Human pressure is seen in the dormant flat area on the roadside behind the moving front sand-dune and in the form of trampling effects on the plants on the side of the road leading to the sea in the north.

Comment: Table 1. Needs correction. Now it is very difficult to understand.

Response: We thank you for this critique which makes the table much more understandable. To make the table more clear, the legends of the abbreviations and table order are explained in detail in the heading as “Table 1. Vegetation table of Kasatura Bay sand-dune. Diagnostic species of each community are shown separately with gray shading. They are listed in decreasing order of fidelities. The threshold of φ-coefficient as a fidelity measure is 0.30. Other species are listed in decreasing order of presence in the total dataset. S and H represent shrub and herb layers, respectively. Growth forms: Ph – Phanerophyte, Ch – Chamaephyte, Hc – Hemicryptophyte, G – Geophyte, Th – Therophyte. Phytogeographical regions: Med. – Mediterranean, Eu-Sib – Euro-Siberian, Wd – Wide distribution”.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors took into account most of the comments. The manuscript can be accepted for publication.