The Impact of Adjacent Road on Vascular Plant Species Composition in Herbaceous Layers of Peucedano-Pinetum and Tilio-Carpinetum Urban Forests in the City of Warsaw (Poland)
, Filip Kamionowski 1, Marcin Ollik 2, Paweł Szumigała 3, Barbara Żarska 1 and Karolina Szumigała 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
Thank you for your corrections.
The corrections are almost completely done in the revised version of the article. Two items need to be reformed:
First: the title of the article, the name "Warsaw" should be corrected.
Second: In my opinion, as I mentioned in the first round of review, the characteristics of the height of the trees (m), the density of the trees (N/ha), and the basal area of the trees (m2/ha) are factors that can affect the community of herbaceous layer in relation to the distance from the road edge. If these characteristics of the stand are added in the section of the studied area, the reader of the article will have a better description of the studied forests.
Good luck
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your very thorough and comprehensive evaluation of our text. We changed some part of text including Yours comments and Academic Editor. We agree with Yours statement that “The characteristics of the height of the trees (m), the density of the trees (N/ha), and the basal area of the trees (m2/ha) are factors that can affect the community of herbaceous layer in relation to the distance from the road edge”, however the purpose of our research was focused only on diversity/changes of vascular plant species in herb layer. We used ecological indicator numbers according to Zarzycki, which informed us about light condition, moisture etc. We are also planning to present relation between dense conopy of tree layer and composition of plan species in herb layer in the future.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript deals with the impact of a road in Warsaw on two different forest types. The topic is interesting and the research design is correct. Nevertheless the presentation of the results, the discussion and the conclusion can be improved. The English must be improved (see, as an example, my suggestions in the Abstract). Some more references to similar studies in other European countries would make the manuscript more interesting for the international reader. In addition, the phytosociological Table must be published along with the manuscript (as a Table in the text or as a Table S1 as Suppl. Mat.). In this phytosociological Table each taxon must be indicated with the name(s) of the author(s).
For further suggestions see the file in attachment.
As a whole, I suggest publication after major revision.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The English must be improved (see, as an example, my suggestions in the Abstract).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for Your very thorough and comprehensive evaluation of our text. We changed some part of the paper, including Yours comments and Academic Editor. We have endeavored to take into account all the comments; below You will find the answers to the individual comments:
- we added new key words and arranged them in alphabetical order,
- tables with phytosociological relevés as Supp. Matterial were added,
- the title of paper is corrected,
- the title under the fig. 2 was changed too,
- English language was corrected according to Yours suggestions,
- latine names are italic and the author(s) of the species were added,
- we added new literature,
- the fig no 5, 8, 9 were improved – it was added a) and b),
- we added “C” in Study area,
- we added information, that phytosociological relevés were done according to B-B method,
- “records” were changed to world “relevés”, but in literature we can find terms: “phytosociological relevés” and “phytosociological records” as a synonym.
- The Supl. Mat. was send on e-mail to Editor, becouse I could add here Excel file.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors addressed most of the questions arisen in review round1.
In my opinion, now the manuscript deserves publication in the journal Forests.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish: Minor revision required
Author Response
I sent you revised version of our manuscript.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is well known that the city is a mosaic complex of different types of vegetation easily disturbed by much human acclivities, especially under the background of climate change. In this paper, the effects of adjacent road on the composition of vascular plants of two community types were systematically discussed by using the combined methods of plot and transect setting, field investigation and statistical analysis, the phased research results and conclusions are obtained.The presented researcher conclusions are important for urban forest management based on each type of forest.
The subject fully falls within the general scope of this Journal. The topic is interesting. The research contents and methods are innovative and well organized. This is comparatively a new and original contribution in this field. The interpretations and conclusions in this paper are sound, and justified by the data and consistent with the objectives.
The remaining problems of improper wording, unreasonable punctuation and formula, and unclear meaning of a few sentences are detailed in the annotation manuscript. Therefore, all of them in detailed were not listed here.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Except a few improper words, unreasonable punctuation and formulas, and a few sentences with unclear meaning, English expression is smooth, easy to understand, logical and readable. In words, English is good.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank You for valuable notes. We have corrected improper words, mistakes in punctation and reformulated “unclear meaning sentences” – according to all Your indications and suggestions. All changes are colored (yellow) in the new version of Our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
Please pay attention to the following.
Abstract: The abstract needs to be rewritten.
Line 16-29: Abstract: In my opinion use “road effect”, also in title. Please indicate the impact distance. Please describe the “plant species composition”.
Line 17-29: Please write a clearer conclusion.
Line 30: please use effective keywords.
Line 41: inconsistent
Line 137: usage of those
Line 142: Study are- Please describe the climatic conditions of the study area. Rainfall, temperature, frost, wind, etc. Please describe the structural characteristics of the two studied forests. Forest area, Tree age, tree density, tree diameter (DBH), tree height, canopy closure, etc.
Line 159: seven transects
Line 166: I think your mean is “150 to 250 m”
Line 167: Figure 3
Line 159-167: The method and plan of sampling is not clear. This part needs to be rewritten.
Line 198: to undertake
Line 209: 5.5
Line 210: 8.2
Line 213-214: I did not understand this sentence. Numbers on the x-axis indicate the number of species in the plot.
Line 215: Please complete the sentence. What do you mean by significant difference? Is your mean number of species? If yes please correct.
Line 216: Do you mean by "location" the distance of the plot from the side of the road to the inside of the forest? Please mention in the research method.
Line 217-218: A more complete discussion is needed. Usually, the number of plant species on the edge of forest roads is more than in the inner areas of the forest stands.
Line 222: “habitat disturbance”? Please use the same words for variables throughout the text.
Line 230: 0.36
Line 230-231: “In edge zone we can observe a clear dependence on the distance from the road.” Which figure or table does this sentence refer to? What do you mean by "edge zone"? Please explain it in terms and methods.
Line 234: I did not understand how the number 75% was calculated.
Line 235: 1.2
Line 236: “Inconsistent species number decrease from 4 – 5 on border to 1,5.” Please complete the sentence.
Line 237: I did not understand how the number 75% was calculated.
Line 236-238: the sentence is unclear for me.
Line 288: Is your mean “Number difference”?
Line 290: 0.50, 1.25, 0.47, 0.99
Line 292: “middle’?
Line 297: 0.36
Line 302: 1.2
Line 303: What is your mean by “but not so strong”?
Line 303-304: Please complete the sentence.
Line 304: 1.5
Line 304: Please type space between “50%.” and “Number”.
Line 305: figure 6
Line 305: Is not clear for me the “does not give such a clear picture”.
Line 306: table 2
Line 305-306: “mainly due to their rare occurrence (tab 2).”
Line 305-306: I did not understand what you mean by this sentence. Also, does Table 2 refer to this issue?
Line 307: 0.50, 1.25
Line 308: 0.47, 0.99
Line 309: “edge zone”? “middle”?
Line 333: Please use the same method to display the unit of numbers. “Species per plot” or “Sp./plot”
Line 375: Figure 10: please describe what are H, D, W, …..
Line 395: Figure 12: please describe what are H, D, W, …..
Line 485-487: How were the distances of 90 and 100 meters obtained? Please refer to these numbers in the results.
Line 489: How was "fertility" measured?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank You for valuable notes. We improved a lot of parts in our manuscript: abstract, keywords, study area, methods, results and selected figures. We have corrected improper words, mistakes in punctation and reformulated “unclear meaning sentences” – according to all Your indications and suggestions.
For example:
“habitat disturbance” was changed into “plant community disturbance”, which was the main object of the research. Of course, in fact, plants / plant communities are very good indicators of all environmental conditions, so indirectly indicate the state of habitat disturbance, as well.
Environmental conditions were characterized by Zarzycki’s indicator numbers – based on high bioindication value of plants / plant communities. These are equivalents of Ellenberg’ indicator numbers adopted / verified by prof. Kazimierz Zarzycki for the specificity of Poland territory (central-eastern Europe). This method is precise enough for the purpose of our research, where main objects of research are forests of natural origin (remnants of natural forests).
All changes are colored (yellow) in the new version of Our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsHi, I read the article and I think that the following points can help to increase the scientific quality of the article.
1. There is a lot of similarity between the keywords and the title of the article. It is better to use more appropriate keywords.
2.Objectives 1, 2 and 3 of the article have been identified and proven, and many studies have been done in this regard. The article is not unique and the author could not mention the innovation of the article.
3.The fourth goal of the article is only mentioned and the authors have not mentioned any data in this connection in the article
4. in line 163 The reason for choosing a distance of 100 for this study is not mentioned.
5. In mather and method of study the variable such as crown cover, light, temperature of plot should be mentioned.
6. Also information about speciose, stand structure, age of road, road specification and road surface material is needed in method section of study
7.Where is figure 5 used in the text of the article?
8. The vertical axis of diagram 8 is not clear.
9.The vertical axis of diagram 9 is not clear.
10. Why were soil samples not taken in this study?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank You for valuable notes. We improved a lot of parts in our manuscript: abstract, keywords, study area, methods, results and figures. We have corrected improper words, mistakes in punctation and reformulated “unclear meaning sentences” – according to all Your indications and suggestions
For example:
“habitat disturbance” was changed into “plant community disturbance”, which was the main object of the research. Of course, in fact, plants / plant communities are very good indicators of all environmental conditions, so indirectly indicate the state of habitat disturbance, as well.
Environmental conditions were characterized by Zarzycki’s indicator numbers – based on high bioindication value of plants / plant communities. These are equivalents of Ellenberg’ indicator numbers adopted / verified by prof. Kazimierz Zarzycki for the specificity of Poland territory (central-eastern Europe). This method is precise enough for the purpose of our research, where main objects of research are forests of natural origin (remnants of natural forests).
All changes are colored (yellow) in the new version of Our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe edition of paper is accepted and couldbe published
