Modeling the Effects of Spatial Distribution on Dynamics of an Invading Melaleuca quinquenervia (Cav.) Blake Population

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript certainly touches on an interesting topic. Issues of the impact of invasive plant species on native plants will be relevant for a long time. Therefore, modeling plays a primary role in modern research. But in this form the manuscript cannot be published. It is necessary to add the word model to the title of the manuscript, as this brings clarity to the essence of the study. The text of the manuscript is mixed up in different chapters and should be moved to the appropriate chapters. In many methodological aspects, the authors leave out important information. It should be added. The comparative part of the discussion needs to be expanded and cited from additional literature sources on other plant species. You should focus on writing the conclusion of the manuscript based on the simulations performed. The authors obtained interesting results, presented them, and based on the proposed hypothesis, they should be disclosed in the conclusions of the manuscript. After all comments have been eliminated, the manuscript can be reconsidered.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 1

Dear Authors,

The manuscript certainly touches on an interesting topic. Issues of the impact of invasive plant species on native plants will be relevant for a long time. Therefore, modeling plays a primary role in modern research. But in this form the manuscript cannot be published. It is necessary to add the word model to the title of the manuscript, as this brings clarity to the essence of the study. The text of the manuscript is mixed up in different chapters and should be moved to the appropriate chapters. In many methodological aspects, the authors leave out important information. It should be added. The comparative part of the discussion needs to be expanded and cited from additional literature sources on other plant species. You should focus on writing the conclusion of the manuscript based on the simulations performed. The authors obtained interesting results, presented them, and based on the proposed hypothesis, they should be disclosed in the conclusions of the manuscript. After all comments have been eliminated, the manuscript can be reconsidered.

Response: Thank you, we appreciate the constructive comments. We have followed the suggestions in the following ways.

We have added ‘modeling’ and ‘Melaleuca quinquenervia’ to the title.

We have concentrated the discussion of the model in the Methods section.

We have completely rewritten the Introduction (Lines 74 to 162) to provide context for the modeling. This includes adding over 20 new references showing how modeling, particularly individual-based modeling, has been used in describing specific plant invasions. This now provides the rationale for our modeling.

The Discussion has been completely revised to recapitulate the results and to explain the importance of the results.

A Conclusions section (565-574) has been added to briefly summarize the main points.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Revise the manuscript for the English language.

2. Explain figures properly for better understanding of readers.

3. Add a graphical abstract.

4. Add a heading of "novelty of the study" and write what new is in this study reported.

5.   Cases 1, 2 and 4 are similar in that each has one extinction, and the trajectories show only a moderate degree of cohesion. What are the possible reasons? Support your results logically with the help of available literature.

6. In only one of the cases (case 3 for individuals initially between 0 and 15 m), are all trajectories relatively similar, all showing clear invasion success. In the other five cases one or more failures to invade occurred and the trajectories of the successful invasions were generally scattered. What are the possible reasons? Support your results logically with the help of available literature.

7. The simulations were carried out for different periods of time, with only a few being carried out long enough to reach extinctions, but the simulations show the extreme variability of trajectories in which only the initial spatial configurations of the individuals of the two species varied. What are the possible reasons? Support your results logically with the help of available literature.

Conclusion

1.      Please write the conclusions which include highlights of your results.

2.      What do you recommend for the future?

3.      What are the benefits of this study?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Revise the manuscript for the English language.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2

1. Revise the manuscript for the English language.

Response: We have carefully edited the manuscript to improve clarity.

2. Explain figures properly for better understanding of readers.

Response: Increased explanation has been added to every figure caption.

3. Add a graphical abstract.

Response:  We have added a graphic abstract (Page 3)

4. Add a heading of "novelty of the study" and write what new is in this study reported.

Response: In the Discussion we now have a section on ‘novelty of study’ (Lines 534-544)

5. Cases 1, 2 and 4 are similar in that each has one extinction, and the trajectories show only a moderate degree of cohesion. What are the possible reasons? Support your results logically with the help of available literature.

Response: We have tried to describe the reasons in Lines 474-495 of the Discussion.

6. In only one of the cases (case 3 for individuals initially between 0 and 15 m), are all trajectories relatively similar, all showing clear invasion success. In the other five cases one or more failures to invade occurred and the trajectories of the successful invasions were generally scattered. What are the possible reasons? Support your results logically with the help of available literature.

Response: We explain this now in the Discussion in terms of the well-known Allee effect (also Lines 474-495)

7. The simulations were carried out for different periods of time, with only a few being carried out long enough to reach extinctions, but the simulations show the extreme variability of trajectories in which only the initial spatial configurations of the individuals of the two species varied. What are the possible reasons? Support your results logically with the help of available literature.

Response: As we now state in the caption of Figure 7. “The time periods of the simulations differ, as the intention was not to show the eventual winner of the competition, but only the high degree of variability of population trajectories.” We attempt to explain the results in Lines 506-520 of the Discussion.

 

Conclusion

1. Please write the conclusions which include highlights of your results.
2. What do you recommend for the future?
3. What are the benefits of this study?

 

Response: We have added a Conclusion section (Lines 565-574) that attempts to do these things.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper use an established spatially explicit ABM to predict the invasion of the non-native tree, Melaleuca quinquenervia, to a native community in southern Florida. The results is logical, clear. However, some minor changes are necessary.

 

Q 1: Line 2-3: The title should be specific, as your study is focused on only one invasive plant (Melaleuca quinquenervia) in one area (southern Florida).  From this aspect, this paper is a case study, its scientific nature is questionable, please make a wide comparison and in-depth discussion in this respect

Q2: Table 1 change to three-wire meter

Q3: It is not appropriate to have Figure and table (as Figure 3 in line 289) in the discussion section

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 3.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper use an established spatially explicit ABM to predict the invasion of the non-native tree, Melaleuca quinquenervia, to a native community in southern Florida. The results is logical, clear. However, some minor changes are necessary.

 Q 1: Line 2-3: The title should be specific, as your study is focused on only one invasive plant (Melaleuca quinquenervia) in one area (southern Florida).  From this aspect, this paper is a case study, its scientific nature is questionable, please make a wide comparison and in-depth discussion in this respect

Response: We have changed the title of the paper to make clear that it is a modeling study of the invasive tree Melaleuca quinquenervia.

Q2: Table 1 change to three-wire meter

Response: We have revised Table 1 according.

Q3: It is not appropriate to have Figure and table (as Figure 3 in line 289) in the discussion section

Response: We have taken care that this does not occur in the revised version.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The authors rewrote the introduction and added a conclusion. Of course, the manuscript was corrected. The review of the study results was selected accordingly, as were the statistical methods used to analyze it. The article takes into account comments on methodology and modeling. References to literature sources have been corrected. The results of previous studies by other authors are taken into account. Modeling always raises many questions in assessing objectivity, so the opinions of scientists may vary. In this case, I have no objections to the publication of the manuscript subject to the editorial decision.