Phytosociological Analysis of the Boreal Oligotrophic Pine Forests in the Southern Ural Region (Russia)
, Pavel Shirokikh 1,*, Elvira Baisheva 1, Albert Muldashev 1, Nikolay Fedorov 1, Svetlana Zhigunova 1 and Leniza Naumova 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article entitled ‘Boreal Oligotrophic Pine Forests in the Southern Ural Region (Russia)’ presents the phytocenotic diversity of these forests and their classification within the Eurasian vegetation system using the Braun-Blanquet approach. The study is good and can be considered for publication after some minor revisions.
Firstly, the title could be modified to be more specific and informative.
Introduction
The introduction part should be expanded to provide a more detailed explanation of the study’s concept, starting with an explanation of syntaxonomy, its relevance, and its application in vegetation classification. A clear articulation of the study’s objectives and its significance within the context of boreal oligotrophic pine forests should also be included.
Materials and methods
The materials and methods section would benefit from a clearer structure by dividing it into distinct parts like Study Area, Data Collection, and Data Analysis. The authors have used Braun-Blanquet approach, please elaborate on this approach, detailing its principles and how it was specifically applied in this study, along with its significance in phytosociology. I also suggest to include a flowchart of the methodology that will enhance clarity and facilitate the reproducibility of the study by helping readers grasp the procedural steps at a glance.
Additionally, after the discussion section, a conclusion section should be added to summarize the key concepts of the study.
Author Response
The article entitled ‘Boreal Oligotrophic Pine Forests in the Southern Ural Region (Russia)’ presents the phytocenotic diversity of these forests and their classification within the Eurasian vegetation system using the Braun-Blanquet approach. The study is good and can be considered for publication after some minor revisions.
Answer: Dear Reviewer! Thank you for careful review of our article. Your recommendations and comments are very useful and improved the quality of manuscript. Below are the answers to your comments (in the text of article corrections are marked in green color).
Firstly, the title could be modified to be more specific and informative.
Answer: We've changed the title of the article: «The diversity and features of boreal oligotrophic pine forests in the Southern Ural region (Russia)»
Introduction
The introduction part should be expanded to provide a more detailed explanation of the study’s concept, starting with an explanation of syntaxonomy, its relevance, and its application in vegetation classification.
Answer: Thanks for comment. We have expanded the Introduction section regarding the relevance of the study and the advantages of the approach used.
A clear articulation of the study’s objectives and its significance within the context of boreal oligotrophic pine forests should also be included.
Answer: We agree with your comment. In the Introduction section, we described the hypothesis and objectives of the study to better understand the aim of our research.
Materials and methods
The materials and methods section would benefit from a clearer structure by dividing it into distinct parts like Study Area, Data Collection, and Data Analysis.
Answer: Thanks for the suggestion. Necessary changes have been made to the text of the manuscript.
The authors have used Braun-Blanquet approach, please elaborate on this approach, detailing its principles and how it was specifically applied in this study, along with its significance in phytosociology. I also suggest to include a flowchart of the methodology that will enhance clarity and facilitate the reproducibility of the study by helping readers grasp the procedural steps at a glance.
Answer: In the Materials and Methods section, we described in more detail the methodology for conducting of geobotanical relevés using the Braun-Blanquet approach. The advantages of the Braun-Blanquet approach are discussed in the Introduction section. In addition, we added to the references an article with decription of the methodology of Braun-Blanquet approach syntaxonomic analyses (Dengler et al., 2008).
Additionally, after the discussion section, a conclusion section should be added to summarize the key concepts of the study.
Answer: Acknowledged. We added a Conclusion section.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor and Author,
The manuscript titled: “Boreal oligotrophic pine forests in the Southern Ural region (Russia)” tries to study distribution and regional features of boreal oligotrophic pine forests in in the Southern Ural region. The manuscript is well-organized as a peer-review paper but needs further improvements.
1- The abstract should be concise and informative including the importance and the problem, aims, methodology and results and conclusion. In this abstract, I see no words about methodology and conclusion.
2- The introduction is well written but no hypothesis and questions are mentioned. I suggest to add the hypothesis or questions of the study and then try to answer them.
3- In the methodology it is mentioned that the data have been obtained from the previous works based on the relevés with 400m2. Were all the data gathered across the 400m2 plots or there were subplots for specific data. Please give more details if there were any subplots in the relevés.
4- The results have been presented in a raw format as the out-put of software. These outputs can be presented in a better from.
5- The discussion is not well-prepared. The sentences provided in this part are appropriate for “introduction” not for discussion. This part should be re-written focusing on challenging the obtained results and comparing them with previous studies. I think, by not clearly specifying the hypotheses or questions in the manuscript, the article fails to provide a clear framework for the research and leaves the reader without a clear understanding of the study's objectives. This omission undermines the credibility of the research and makes it difficult for the reader to evaluate the validity of the findings. In order to meet the standards of academic writing, it is crucial to clearly state the hypotheses in the manuscript and provide a logical and structured discussion of the research objectives.
L155: “TURBOWIN 2.0” or “Turboveg”
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Dear Editor and Author,
The manuscript titled: “Boreal oligotrophic pine forests in the Southern Ural region (Russia)” tries to study distribution and regional features of boreal oligotrophic pine forests in in the Southern Ural region. The manuscript is well-organized as a peer-review paper but needs further improvements.
1- The abstract should be concise and informative including the importance and the problem, aims, methodology and results and conclusion. In this abstract, I see no words about methodology and conclusion.
2- The introduction is well written but no hypothesis and questions are mentioned. I suggest to add the hypothesis or questions of the study and then try to answer them.
3- In the methodology it is mentioned that the data have been obtained from the previous works based on the relevés with 400m2. Were all the data gathered across the 400m2 plots or there were subplots for specific data. Please give more details if there were any subplots in the relevés.
4- The results have been presented in a raw format as the out-put of software. These outputs can be presented in a better from.
5- The discussion is not well-prepared. The sentences provided in this part are appropriate for “introduction” not for discussion. This part should be re-written focusing on challenging the obtained results and comparing them with previous studies. I think, by not clearly specifying the hypotheses or questions in the manuscript, the article fails to provide a clear framework for the research and leaves the reader without a clear understanding of the study's objectives. This omission undermines the credibility of the research and makes it difficult for the reader to evaluate the validity of the findings. In order to meet the standards of academic writing, it is crucial to clearly state the hypotheses in the manuscript and provide a logical and structured discussion of the research objectives.
L155: “TURBOWIN 2.0” or “Turboveg”
Author Response
The manuscript titled: “Boreal oligotrophic pine forests in the Southern Ural region (Russia)” tries to study distribution and regional features of boreal oligotrophic pine forests in in the Southern Ural region. The manuscript is well-organized as a peer-review paper but needs further improvements.
Answer: Dear Reviewer. We are thank you for careful review of our article. Your recommendations and comments are very useful and improved the quality of manuscript. Below are the answers to your comments (in the text of article corrections are marked in red color).
1- The abstract should be concise and informative including the importance and the problem, aims, methodology and results and conclusion. In this abstract, I see no words about methodology and conclusion.
Answer: Thanks for the comment. We added the methodology to the Abstract and more clearly described the results of the study.
2- The introduction is well written but no hypothesis and questions are mentioned. I suggest to add the hypothesis or questions of the study and then try to answer them.
Answer: We agree with your comment. In the Introduction section, we described the hypothesis and objectives of the study to better understand the aim of our research.
3- In the methodology it is mentioned that the data have been obtained from the previous works based on the relevés with 400 m2. Were all the data gathered across the 400 m2 plots or there were subplots for specific data. Please give more details if there were any subplots in the relevés.
Answer: Sample plots were square or rectangular in shape with side lengths ranging from 10 to 35 m. The areas of sample plots ranged from 200 to 1000 m2 depending on the homogenous of the vegetation cover. More detailed information for each sample plot is provided in Tables S3, S5 in the Supplementary materials. We have added the necessary explanations in the Methods section.
4- The results have been presented in a raw format as the out-put of software. These outputs can be presented in a better from.
Answer: You are probably referring to Figure 2, which is a cluster diagram. Since the analysis was carried out using data on the floristic composition of 61 syntaxa, we considered it irrational to change the numerical designations to the names of syntaxa. For better understanding, we changed the figure by highlighting in a separate colour the cluster that unites the communities of the new alliance.
5- The discussion is not well-prepared. The sentences provided in this part are appropriate for “introduction” not for discussion. This part should be re-written focusing on challenging the obtained results and comparing them with previous studies. I think, by not clearly specifying the hypotheses or questions in the manuscript, the article fails to provide a clear framework for the research and leaves the reader without a clear understanding of the study's objectives. This omission undermines the credibility of the research and makes it difficult for the reader to evaluate the validity of the findings. In order to meet the standards of academic writing, it is crucial to clearly state the hypotheses in the manuscript and provide a logical and structured discussion of the research objectives.
Answer: In the Introduction section, we described the hypothesis and objectives of the study. We have significantly revised the Discussion section taking into account your valuable recommendations and added necessary explanations to the text.
L155: “TURBOWIN 2.0” or “Turboveg”
Answer: Thanks. Corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors study the boreal oligotrophic pine forests of the Southern Ural region determine their diversity and position in the system of classification of Eurasian vegetation. The manuscript is well structured, with correct analyses and adequately written.
However I have some comments:
Data relating to the definition of forest given in this work is missing... what is the minimum pine cover taken into consideration? e.g. the FAO definition of forest takes into consideration a tree cover of at least 15%. Please add this information
What shape do the plots have? square? circular? Were they all made in the same season? please specify
Author Response
The authors study the boreal oligotrophic pine forests of the Southern Ural region determine their diversity and position in the system of classification of Eurasian vegetation. The manuscript is well structured, with correct analyses and adequately written.
Answer: Dear Reviewer! Thank you for careful review of our article. Your recommendations and comments are very useful and improved the quality of manuscript. Below are the answers to your comments.
However I have some comments:
Data relating to the definition of forest given in this work is missing... what is the minimum pine cover taken into consideration? e.g. the FAO definition of forest takes into consideration a tree cover of at least 15%. Please add this information
Answer: The minimum projective cover of the pine was 35 %. In the Southern Urals, there are pine forests with a lower projective cover (the so called sparce or park pine forests), but these forest communities are more xerophytic, with predominance of grasses (not mosses), belong to a different class of vegetation, and are not discussed in this article. More detailed information for each sample plot is provided in Tables S1-7 in the Supplementary materials.
What shape do the plots have? square? circular? Were they all made in the same season? please specify
Data used were 130 relevés of boreal oligotrophic pine forest communities described by the authors in the Southern Ural and Kurgan regions during June-August 1996–2013. Sample plots were square or rectangular in shape with side lengths ranging from 10 to 35 m. The areas of sample plots ranged from 200 to 1000 m2, depending on the homogenous of the vegetation cover. Necessary corrections have been made to the text of the manuscript (corrections are marked in green color).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsBoreal oligotrophic pine forests in the Southern Ural region (Russia)
The draft is not an ARTICLE, but it can be presented as a REVIEW for this kind of forests. The draft is nice and the information is sound for this specific area, and not so many information is available.
I suggest the authors, to change the type of publication.
Abstract: L 17. Remove brackets. Remove bold text in the main text for all the document.
Tables 1 and 2 must move to Annex, at the end of the paper.
Add some Figure with photos (e.g. 4 photos) of the different forest types.
Change the title Discussion for “Final Remarks” or integrate the text in the previous descriptions of the groups.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer. We are thank you for careful review of our article. Your recommendations and comments are very useful and improved the quality of manuscript. Below are the answers to your comments.
The draft is not an ARTICLE, but it can be presented as a REVIEW for this kind of forests. The draft is nice and the information is sound for this specific area, and not so many information is available. I suggest the authors, to change the type of publication.
Answer: This manuscript is not a review because, in addition to literature data, new research data that have not been previously published are presented. We compared the authors' data with the literature data to justify the identification of a new alliance of plant communities. For a better understanding and a clearer structure of the article, we have separately highlighted the concept and objectives of the study in the introduction and structured Materials and Methods.
Abstract: L 17. Remove brackets. Remove bold text in the main text for all the document.
Answer: Thank you! Done.
Tables 1 and 2 must move to Annex, at the end of the paper.
Answer: Acknowledged. Done.
Add some Figure with photos (e.g. 4 photos) of the different forest types.
Answer: We added photos of different types of pine forest.
Change the title Discussion for “Final Remarks” or integrate the text in the previous descriptions of the groups.
Answer: We have significantly revised the Discussion part and added a Conclusion section.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am satisfied with the revisions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer. We are thank you for careful review of our article. Your recommendations and comments very improved the quality of manuscript.
On behalf of the co-authors Pavel Shirokikh
Ufa Institute of biology - Subdivision of the
Ufa Federal Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Prospect Octyabrya, 69, Ufa 450054, Russia
August 10, 2024
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe diversity and features of boreal oligotrophic pine forests in the Southern Ural region (Russia)
I am still thinking that is is more a Review than an Article. As an Article, this draft presents a lot of weakness, and as a Review it is OK in their contents.
Figure 1 must be better presented in quality. The text in the upper part is unacceptable. The same in the bottom part, you cannot read them. Please, make better maps in GIS.
Discussion are poor, and conclusions are NOT real conclusions (the conclusions must be a few sentences with your NEW findings to the Science). I think, if you mix the discussion with the previous sections, and change the title of Conclusions for Final Remarks, it will be a very nice paper!
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor check of the text is needed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer. Thank you for careful review of our article. Your recommendations and comments are very useful and have improved the quality of the manuscript. Below are the answers to your comments.
I am still thinking that is more a Review than an Article. As an Article, this draft presents a lot of weakness, and as a Review it is OK in their contents.
Answer: We agree that the format of our manuscript is of an intermediate nature, because, in addition to the original and first published data, the manuscript includes a large comparative block of additional information on pine forests from other regions. This format is traditional for articles on vegetation classification but is not generally accepted in other areas of plant ecology. We leave the decision about the correct format for our article to the editor.
Figure 1 must be better presented in quality. The text in the upper part is unacceptable. The same in the bottom part, you cannot read them. Please, make better maps in GIS.
Answer: We agree with your opinion. We improved the quality of Figure 1. We also sent the figures as separate files, to avoid deterioration of the quality of figures when inserting them into Word.
Discussion are poor, and conclusions are NOT real conclusions (the conclusions must be a few sentences with your NEW findings to the Science). I think, if you mix the discussion with the previous sections, and change the title of Conclusions for Final Remarks, it will be a very nice paper!
Answer: We changed the title of Conclusions to Final Remarks. In addition, in Final Remarks section, we explained in more detail the relevance and novelty of our research.
On behalf of the co-authors Pavel Shirokikh
Ufa Institute of biology - Subdivision of the
Ufa Federal Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Prospect Octyabrya, 69, Ufa 450054, Russia
August 10, 2024
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
