The Spatial Pattern of the Tertiary Relict Plant Tetracentron sinense Oliver and Its Influencing Factors
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors,
I did not review the first version of the manuscript, but there are improvements in certain parts in the second revised version. However, there are still several and significant areas that need improvement compared to that. The evaluation is based on the new version.
In their work, Zhang et al. examined the spatial pattern of Tetracentron sinense and how it is influenced by internal, environmental, and other species, as well as environmental factors. The results indicate that certain populations of T. sinense aggregate more on a smaller scale, and the distribution of individuals depends on climatic factors. Young trees show positive interaction with older trees, but this interaction becomes less positive or negative as the scale increases. The study also showed that altitude, litter depth, zinc, and calcium are environmental factors influencing the distribution of T. sinense. The results provide new insights into the spatial patterns of tertiary relict species and the role of environmental factors, which are relevant for the conservation and management of relic plants in fragmented habitats.
Introduction
It would be worth elaborating on the meaning of "tertiary relict species" (Line 51).
Figures
The resolution of the figures is inadequate (the first version had much better quality). What program was used for figure representation? This information should be included in the figure captions at least. For Figures 3, 4, and 5, it might be beneficial to change the representation. It would assist the reader better if the subplots were labeled at the beginning of the rows with plot names (P1-P4). The tops of the columns should indicate age groups (Fig. 4) and species interaction (Fig. 5). On Figure 5, how were the species arranged in order, based on their frequency?
Materials and Methods
Why are the plot sizes different? Could this cause variations in the obtained results later? How were the positions of individuals marked/determined in the 10x10 m squares? I mean, was it measured with GPS or with another method with meter or centimeter precision? A schematic diagram or a map of one plot's points could be provided.
It is not clear from the materials and methods that four additional species were also examined. How were soil samples taken (method, tool, etc.)? How were the material contents of the soil samples determined, and why were the organic content of soil samples not examined? What type of soil is it (clay, loam, sand, or other category)?
Line 119: "...Programita 2010 [38]..." This program was developed by Wiegand. However, the reference to Wiegand is [39]. Check the references because there might be a mistake somewhere. Also, it should be made clear which program was used for point pattern analysis.
Results
It is worth reconsidering and rewriting the results. Some parts are contradictory. If the trunk diameter of trees was determined and categorized, Programita offers the opportunity to analyze quantitatively marked patterns as well. Why was this not done? It would be interesting to supplement the manuscript with this using, for example, Langdon et al.'s work (2019) or additional papers by Wiegand.
Discussion
This section needs to be reviewed due to changes in the results. Can the obtained results be explained by the different sizes of the applied plots?
Conclusion
L383-386: What do you mean by "the interactions between animals, microbes, and people"? It is unclear, and the authors should provide more specific details. This is vague and can encompass many things, so it does not provide proper guidance for future research.
Minor corrections:
Line 18: a spece is missing (1700-1800 m instead of 1700-1800m)
L81-83 and 326: write in italics: Cerasus szechuanica, Styrax japonicus and Tilia amurensis
L88: a spece is missing (40800 m2)
L97: “..of each tree..” does this apply to all species examined or only to T. sinese? “each tree species” or “each tree of T. sinense”?
L125: “..A completely random distribution model (CSR) was..” The abbreviation does not match, as CSR stands for Complete Spatial Randomness. Of course, you can call it as “completely random distribution model”, but the abbreviation is not right either, and where/who does this name come from, who used it like this first?
L131: “..between the two species [32]..” it must be stated in general terms, so in my opinion the word "the" is not needed. Because the authors did not study two species.
L139-144: Where/who wrote the second-fourth formulas?
L185-186, 233-234, 264-265: Space is missing because it is as if the fig legends continue in the text.
Fig.2.: The markings in the figure are too small and difficult to read.
Fig.4.D,E,F: the size of the x-axis labels of the figures is not same.
Fig.4 and 5: The figures could be larger for readability.
Fig.3., 4. and 5. legends: What do the solid black lines mean?
Fig.3., 4. and 5. legends: It is worth clarifying and writing briefly down what the 3 types of distribution mean. aggregated distribution (positive interaction), random distribution (interaction is neutral or absent), regular distributin (negative interaction)
L208: “scales of 0.5-1.125 m and 12.2-13.2” Why is the scale so accurate here? I still understand the half meter accuracy. Does it make sense to use three decimal places? That's a range of less than a centimeter.
L217, 239, 246: What does that mean exactly “very small scales” or “smaller scales”? Before, three decimal places were precisely defined, now not even that.
L235-237: This sentence fits in materials and methods. “In the four plots, A. sinense, Prunus tomentosa (Thunb.) Wall., S. japonicus, and P. psilophyllus ..”
L240: “S. japonicus, P. tomentosa, with T. sinense” -> instead of “and”?
L241: “strong positove interaction at the range of 11-14 m” Are you sure? I think it is more like 11-24 m for S. japonicus, while for P. tomentosa there is a significant peak around 11 m and 40 m. Or on what basis was the merger made up to 11-14 m?
L243: “and a positive interaction with T. sinense at larger scales (26-27) “ This is also not precisely defined for the two species.
L244-245: “In P4, no interaction was observed..” In my opinion, this cannot be stated clearly either. A minimal positive interaction can be detected between T. sinense and S japonicus and A. sinense.
Table 1: It would be worthwhile to mark the border of each plot, because they are difficult to separate.
L287: shape instead of shade
L308: Delete point or use capital letter. “..of trees. which is consistent..”
The following references are not numbered in the Discussion: L309, 316, 317 (two), 335, 340
Comments on the Quality of English Language
It is worth checking the English grammar in some places because it can be misleading.
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for the valuable feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript. Now we have revised it according to your comments. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes marked in green in the revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate your warm work earnestly and hope the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
For the cover letter please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors,
With substantial interest I have read the submitted manuscript titled „The spatial pattern of the tertiary relict plant Tetracentron sinense Oliver and its influencing factors” and I have found some imperfections, which should be corrected or clarified before an eventual publication. I have listed them below:
1. In the chapter Introduction the choice of Tetracentron sinense Oliver for investigations should be better justified.
2. Due to spatial distribution of plants depends on their features I think, that the suitable description of Tetracentron sinense Oliver must be added. Such description might be placed in chapter Matrerial and methods as separate subchapter titled Study species and it should contain the following information: mode of seed dispersal (anemochory, zoochory or barochory), mode of vegetative reproduction (if exists), lifespan, habitat affiliation, range of a species.
3. The Figure presenting the experimental design should be placed in chapter Material and methods.
4. The choice of Plots 1,2 and 3 should be better justified (e.g. why did You establish plots with different size?, did the abiotic and biotic conditions within plots differ?).
5. Figure 4 and 5 are illegibile and the captions are to extent. They contain information about mode of calculation, which should be considerably shorten or moved into chapter Material and methods.
6. Please, look into following publication. Perhaps, it would be useful in manuscript improvement:
• Xue Wang, Fan Duan, Huan Zhang, Hongyan Han, Xiaohong Gan, Fine-scale spatial genetic structure of the endangered plant Tetracentron sinense Oliv. (Trochodendraceae) in Leigong Mountain. Global Ecology and Conservation, 41,2023, e02382,
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for the valuable feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript. Now we have revised it according to your comments. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes marked in green in the revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate your warm work earnestly and hope the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors,
I accept most of the corrections to the manuscript, but I would also like to draw the attention of yours to some additional errors and omissions.
L112-117: In my opinion, the Materials and methods section of the manuscript should be supplemented with the answer written by the authors: “The reason we establish the plots with different size is that T. sinense is patchily distributed in the gullies of Leigong Mountain, and the patches are divided by ridges.”
L134-137: I don't quite understand, was the gravel removed or not? Were they removed from the soil after the soil sample was collected?
L134-145: I still don't know why the organic content ang quality (e.g: humic substance, humic acid etc.) of the soil was not determined?
L148 (Fig 1.), L213 (Fig2), L226 (Fig3), L249 (Fig4), L281 (Fig5): The written form of the program name is not appropriate.
The legend texts and values in Figure 2B are still in small font.
Langdon et al.’s work (2019): Langdon, B., Cavieres, L. A., & Pauchard, A. (2019). At a microsite scale, native vegetation determines spatial patterns and survival of Pinus contorta invasion in Patagonia. Forests, 10(8), 654.
Minor corrections:
L73: what is the reference number? (Tian et al., (2018).)
Check the spaces in several places because there are many double spaces or where they are missing. E.g:L74, 104, 105 missing space: (“..competition[25]..” “..self-ferilization[22]..” and “..wind-borne[27]..”) L114, 119, 124: Double space (“..m2 (Figure 1 and..” “(DBH) > 1 cm..” and “..prominence) x 100]..”)
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for the valuable feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript. Now we have revised it according to your comments. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes marked in green in the revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate your warm work earnestly and hope the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors,
Your manuscript has been sufficiently corrected, therefore I do not any further remarks.
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for the valuable feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
