The Conservation Status and Population Mapping of the Endangered Dracaena serrulata in the Dhofar Mountains, Oman

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have got several major problems with this manuscript:

Methods are described in a dodgy way. The authors mention 2 different ‘approaches’ which, for sure, is a result of non-coordinated research trips. The authors promise to present the method and results pertinent to both ‘approaches’ separately, but I fail to see where this is done. The information on how the health (they use no. of segments… but why?) and age of individuals samples was ascertained is very poorly described. I am puzzled what statement ‘Results are consolidated into a single discussion. ‘ means (line 119) The data, obviously stratified according to age and ‘health’ status, are presented but no attempt was made to submit them to any serious statistical analysis which would give us an insight on demographic trends. Instead, a strange health-to-slope is presented. The authors claim that the values for ‘slope‘ are not normally distributed, but is slope not an independent variable? Are the authors sure what they are doing? The Discussion itself is either irrelevant (dwelling too much on other species of Dracaena) or sterile. Not surprisingly, since the Results show only the distribution and some demographic data – raw data which do not speak. There are plenty of technical issues (failure to name the sources of base maps which are apparently NOT authors’ own creations; sloppy referencing/formats; poor quality of figures; poor English). Last but not least, the studied Dracaena might be a ‘tree’, but it is not making any forest or even a woodland. The journal is called ‘Forests’ and hence the paper has been misplaced in the first place.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for all your valuable comments and suggestions

In points:

1. Methods are described in a dodgy way

-All three chapters of methods have been overwritten in a less dodgy way to clarify the whole methodological process. See Chap 2.1. 2.2. and 2.3.

2. The authors mention 2 different ‘approaches’ which, for sure, is a result of non-coordinated research trips. The authors promise to present the method and result pertinent to both ‘approaches’ separately, but I fail to see where this is done.

- Methods and results of two studies have been separated into the less confusing description: a) study of population size and distribution and b)study of the health status of the population.

3. The information on how the health (they use no. of segments… but why?) and age of individuals samples was ascertained is very poorly described.

- Health status is described by number of health rosettes in the crown, age status is described by the number of branch sections. The methodology was updated to clarify the mentioned parameters. See lines 152 - 159

4. I am puzzled what statement ‘Results are consolidated into a single discussion. ‘ means (line 119)

- Aims of the study have been newly described. See lines 116 - 124

5. The data, obviously stratified according to age and ‘health’ status, are presented but no attempt was made to submit them to any serious statistical analysis which would give us an insight on demographic trends. Instead, a strange health-to-slope is presented. The authors claim that the values for ‘slope‘ are not normally distributed, but is a slope, not an independent variable? Are the authors sure what they are doing? 

- Specialist in statistics have been invited to the coauthor's team, all statistics have been analyzed and described newly. See lines 167 - 171, 233 - 259.

6. The Discussion itself is either irrelevant (dwelling too much on other species of Dracaena) or sterile. 

- The discussion has been updated, See lines 289 - 292, 340 - 342. It is complicated to properly discussed issues concerning D. serrulata in case of such a lack of relevant studies. From our point of view, discussion deals with many relevant pieces of information and doesn't seem to be sterile or irrelevant.

7. Not surprisingly, since the Results show only the distribution and some demographic data – raw data which do not speak.

- This is the first mapping and inventory process of D. serrulata. Even a raw data describing population size and distribution of trees are valuable in case of subsequent studies and conservation activities.

8. There are plenty of technical issues (failure to name the sources of base maps which are apparently NOT authors’ own creations; sloppy referencing/formats; poor quality of figures; poor English).

- All Figures have been updated to enhance their quality, background sources have been cited, the whole text has been corrected by a native speaker. Changes are highlighted in the text.

9. Last but not least, the studied Dracaena might be a ‘tree’, but it is not making any forest or even a woodland. The journal is called ‘Forests’ and hence the paper has been misplaced in the first place.

- With respect to the reviewer's comment, Special Issue of Forests "Dragon Trees Tertiary Relicts in Current Reality" consists of studies describing Dracaena species only. From this point of view, the presented paper is not misplaced, moreover, omitting as important Dracaena species as D. serrulata in this issue would be unfortunate.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript titled "The conservation status and population mapping of the endangered Dracaena serrulata in the Dhofar Mountains, Oman" is well drafted and structured, with a clear description of the different epigraphs. I appreciate the efforts of the authors to inventory the high number of trees that integrate this research, and the hard work related to the poor accesibility of certain populations. I think that it provides very useful information about how these populations of Dracaena serrulata can be protected and managed, avoiding the causes of its current degradation.

For that reasons, I recommend the publication of this manuscript after a minor revision.

With the aim of improving the text, I only suggest a few changes that only affect some sentences:

Line 185: add "as" to say "....this as a young population..."  

Line 307: add a comma after 2018, to say "...2018, flowers or seeds..."

Lines 310-311: add commas in that lines as follows: "...Dhofar Mts., and compared....species, it is a sign...."

Line 314: add comma after 2018

Line 314: Please, replace the word "numbers" by "number", I think that it is more adequate

321: Please, replace the word "by" by "on" in the sentence "....mostly by older trees...", and add a comma after "older trees"

Thus, I consider that Figures 2 and 3 can be improved with bigger dots into the respective legends, because in the current status the colors are not very well visible.

Finally, I suggest to change the order of the Figure 9 to the first position, with the aim of facilitating text reading when population's map of Dracaena is referenced in the text (line 123).

Author Response

Dear reviewer thank you for all your valuable comments and updates.

In points:

1.For that reasons, I recommend the publication of this manuscript after a minor revision.

With the aim of improving the text, I only suggest a few changes that only affect some sentences:

Line 185: add "as" to say "....this as a young population..."  

Line 307: add a comma after 2018, to say "...2018, flowers or seeds..."

Lines 310-311: add commas in that lines as follows: "...Dhofar Mts., and compared....species, it is a sign...."

Line 314: add comma after 2018

Line 314: Please, replace the word "numbers" by "number", I think that it is more adequate

321: Please, replace the word "by" by "on" in the sentence "....mostly by older trees...", and add a comma after "older trees"

• Thank you for corrections, all mentioned changes have been corrected

2. Thus, I consider that Figures 2 and 3 can be improved with bigger dots into the respective legends, because in the current status the colors are not very well visible.

• Figures were updated to make points more visible, See Fig 6, 7a, 7b

3. Finally, I suggest to change the order of the Figure 9 to the first position, with the aim of facilitating text reading when population's map of Dracaena is referenced in the text (line 123).

- The structure of the whole text has been changed to clarify methods, Figures, and results.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf