Genus Acacia in Mainland Portugal: Knowledge and Experience of Stakeholders in Their Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the manuscript "Australian acacias (wattles) in mainland Portugal: perceptions, knowledge, and experiences of stakeholders regarding the invasion process" the authors used online survey to identify the perceptions, knowledge, and experiences of stakeholders involved in the control of Acacia spp. This information also allowed the authors identified the most used control methods to Acacia spp., and gaps in stakeholders' knowledge of the processes of acacias' control.
In my view, this article holds significance as it elucidates the different approaches used for managing Acacia spp. and the primary channels through which stakeholders access information about acacia invasion in Portugal. This insight will enable to focus efforts on the most efficacious strategies to combat theses invasive species and effectively disseminate relevant information through media like social networks and training courses, empowering stakeholder to take proactive steps in controlling these species.
In addition to finding the manuscript relevant for publication, I consider that the manuscript is well structured and easy to read. I have no comments to make to the authors just a quote as a suggestion.
Line 38: I think this quote is relevant for in this sentence: IPBES (2023). Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on Invasive Alien Species and their Control of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Roy, H. E., Pauchard, A., Stoett, P., Renard Truong, T., Bacher, S., Galil, B. S., Hulme, P. E., Ikeda, T., Sankaran, K. V., McGeoch, M. A., Meyerson, L. A., Nuñez, M. A., Ordonez, A., Rahlao, S. J., Schwindt, E., Seebens, H., Sheppard, A. W., and Vandvik, V. (eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7430692
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you very much for your review of our paper. Your suggestion has been considered. We have included the reference in lines 28 to 31.
With our best regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript land-2654170, titled “Australian acacias (wattles) in mainland Portugal: perceptions,knowledge, and experiences of stakeholders regarding the invasion process
written by Maria Conceição Colaço, Ana Catarina Sequeira, Iryna Skulska is an interesting article that summarized the main aspects of active management of acacias´ invasion in Portugal. Through survey results the authors characterized the main stakeholders involved, where they act, general control applied and the ways to improve IAS actions in the country.
I think that the article is interesting, but the authors need clarify some parts of the manuscript to make it more valuable. Besides, despite not being an English native speaker, I recommend reviewing English.
Reccomendations:
Title is wider than the topic of the article. The title should include the word management.
Please, specify which definition of stakeholder is considered in this manuscript
Related to the policies and technical documents mentioned in the main text, please add the proper citation on the bibliography:
Line 30: change the cite in brackets into numbers and add in the bibliography
Line 81: (Law No. 1951 and Decree-Law 63 No. 28039 of 1937).
Line 72: Portuguese National Inventory
Line 100: Rural Development Program (PDR2020).
Line 108: Add in the EU Regulation 1143/2014
Line 108-109Sixth Plenary of the Inter governmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Results
In Table 2, it would be interesting to highlight in percentage the number of surveys sent to each class of stakeholder and clarify in the table details that the percentage you already reported is related to the number of respondents. Why stakeholder's classes in Tables 2 and 3 are different? (6 are mentioned in Table 3 and only 3 classes on Table 2).
Please clarify the administrative order of a “municipality” in Portugal (It would be useful for foreign readers)
The phrases on lines 174-181 are not reffered to the questions for section 3.1. Please, reframe the subtitle.
Fig 1 Clarify what is the meaning of “entities”
Lines 197-200 Interpretations of the results. Please, put them in the discussion section.
Please, mention how many stakeholders are working at each class of forested areas (protected area, public forest, etc)
Line 232: Please, clarify. It is not the same to know a method or to apply it. In the rest of the paragraph and the graph, you said “use”.
Line 243-4. “The decision of the methods to be used by a team of experts can somehow create some 243 individual unawareness of the different methods”. It´s not clear.
Please, clarify the meaning of sustainability in the context of the manuscript in the methods section and rewrite the results below a related subtitle.
Line 276-277 References to the topic should be in the discussion section if it is appropriate. This part sounds to be on the Discussion.
Please clarify the difference between “mechanical treatment” and “physical”.
Line 304: What is an article? Scientific? Peer reviewed? Please clarify.
Lines 308-320: This paragraph should be in the section related to improve the control.
This title is an interpretation of the results. 3.2.4. What is wrong with the funding for acacias' control in Portugal?
Lines 329-331 It is a common situation for most IAS management. Is it something asked directly in the survey or it is an interpretation of the results?
350-352 That's true, but it´s controversial. Please read and cite for this (Shackleton et al., 2022)
Please integrate in the discussion the parts that aren´t results but that were included there. In reverse, there are some aspects of the survey mentioned in the discussion but I didn´t find them in the results (e.g. time of control/re-treatment)
Shackleton, R. T., Vimercati, G., Probert, A. F., Bacher, S., Kull, C. A., & Novoa, A. (2022). Consensus and controversy in the discipline of invasion science. Conservation Biology, 36(5), e13931. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13931
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you very much for your review. All your suggestions have been considered. Below you can find a report on the changes made.
Recommendations:
Title is wider than the topic of the article. The title should include the word management.
Reply: The title was changed accordingly.
Please, specify which definition of stakeholder is considered in this manuscript
Reply: Some examples were introduced in line 124-126.
Related to the policies and technical documents mentioned in the main text, please add the proper citation on the bibliography:
Reply: The citation was inserted.
Line 30: change the cite in brackets into numbers and add in the bibliography.
Reply: Done.
Line 81: (Law No. 1951 and Decree-Law 63 No. 28039 of 1937).
Reply: Done.
Line 72: Portuguese National Inventory
Reply: Done.
Line 100: Rural Development Program (PDR2020).
Reply: Done.
Line 108: Add in the EU Regulation 1143/2014
Reply: Done.
Line 108-109Sixth Plenary of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Reply: Done.
Results:
In Table 2, it would be interesting to highlight in percentage the number of surveys sent to each class of stakeholder and clarify in the table details that the percentage you already reported is related to the number of respondents. Why stakeholder's classes in Tables 2 and 3 are different? (6 are mentioned in Table 3 and only 3 classes on Table 2).
Reply: Table 3 presents the characteristics of the stakeholders and Table 2 the institutions they belong to. Small changes were made for clarity.
Please clarify the administrative order of a “municipality” in Portugal (It would be useful for foreign readers)
Reply: A definition of the municipality was introduced in the caption of Figure 1 (lines 206-207).
The phrases on lines 174-181 are not referred to the questions for section 3.1. Please, reframe the subtitle.
Reply: The subtitle is now reframed.
Fig 1 Clarify what is the meaning of “entities”
Reply: A clarification was introduced
Lines 197-200 Interpretations of the results. Please, put them in the discussion section.
Reply: This paragraph was suppressed.
Please, mention how many stakeholders are working at each class of forested areas (protected area, public forest, etc)
Reply: This information was added as labels in Figure 2.
Line 232: Please, clarify. It is not the same to know a method or to apply it. In the rest of the paragraph and the graph, you said “use”.
Reply: We agree with your observation. We made some changes to this paragraph in order to clarify and avoid the term “use”.
Line 243-4. “The decision of the methods to be used by a team of experts can somehow create some 243 individual unawareness of the different methods”. It´s not clear.
Reply: The sentence was rewritten for clarity.
Please, clarify the meaning of sustainability in the context of the manuscript in the methods section and rewrite the results below a related subtitle.
Reply: A clarification has been added in line 141 of the section Materials and Methods and subtitle 3.2. was changed accordingly.
Line 276-277 References to the topic should be in the discussion section if it is appropriate. This part sounds to be on the Discussion.
Reply: The sentence was rewritten accordingly.
Please clarify the difference between “mechanical treatment” and “physical”.
Reply: There is no difference, we have changed to “mechanical” throughout the manuscript.
Line 304: What is an article? Scientific? Peer reviewed? Please clarify.
Reply: We changed to scientific papers.
Lines 308-320: This paragraph should be in the section related to improve the control.
Reply: A subtitle was added (3.2.4).
This title is an interpretation of the results. 3.2.4. What is wrong with the funding for acacias' control in Portugal?
Reply: The subtitle was changed accordingly.
Lines 329-331 It is a common situation for most IAS management. Is it something asked directly in the survey or it is an interpretation of the results?
Reply: This is a short introduction for readers to better understand the importance of the issue.
350-352 That's true, but it´s controversial. Please read and cite for this (Shackleton et al., 2022)
Reply: Citation was introduced in line 469.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI found this an interesting manuscript which will be of wide interest.
However, there are a number of issues which need to be addressed. They start with the title -Australia acacias(wattles) - Certainly there are many examples of acacia species whose natural habitat is in Australia which have become major invasive problems in several continents. Of the species which are recognised as problematic in Portugal the majority are of Australian origin. However, Acacia karroo Is not an Australian species -its natural habitat is in Africa and it has been introduced into Australia , where its spread is regarded with concern.
In discussing Acacia, nomenclatural problems arise because of the different taxonomies employed in different publications. Within Africa a number of the plants which have been referred to as Acacia for more than a century now belong to different genera. However ,any wattle which has origin in Australia will still be an Acacia regardless of what taxonomy is adopted
Line 13
‘Alien tree species in forests'..
The wording here may reflect a particular concept of forest, but trees can also invade woodland and savanna.
For the purposes of this manuscript how is alien defined? In geographically extensive countries invasion of trees beyond their natural distribution but still within the same country /jurisdiction can occur. For example a number of species of wattle are considered invasive in Australia outside their natural distribution range - such as Cootamundra wattle, Acacia baileyana, which is endemic to a very small area, but as a result of being planted in gardens , has now spread into bush well outside its original distribution.
Line 36
As well as sea journeys there were also land journeys which were possible between continents between North and South America, between Europe and Asia and between Papua New Guinea and Australia.
Not all the species which have spread beyond their natural range were deliberately planted, others may have had their movement facilitated and become established without being planted by humans. At different times and different places the methods of transport and establishment for the same species may have varied.
For those species which have become established in Portugal, were there ever industrial uses such as production of tannin-which was, for example, a major reason for plantings in Africa, or was their introduction accidental. Was there ever a commercial industry of cut inflorescences, or was deliberate planting initially mostly in gardens?
Line 43
Competition between native and invading species may reduce the number of individuals of the native species, but are there any proven cases where total extinction due to invasion has occurred.
Line 44- 45
Clumsy wording
Perhaps could be better worded as
,, but only since 1990 did research on invasive alien trees expand significantly, an interest in the topic continues to grow today
Line 67
Acacia mearnsii is native to Australia, but the type specimen is from east Africa. It had been introduced to Africa from Australia before it had been named. It' spread in Africa, where it is a major problem, was mostly due to it being considered an important species for the tannin industry.
Lines 70-71
What is the country in which A dealbata occurs across the entire mainland.?
Line 74
’ ‘dominant’ rather than’ dominated’
Line 86
Monitoring of recovered areas is important but monitoring of recovery is equally necessary.
Line 88
‘sensitizing citizens’ - is there a better word than sensitizing?
Line 91
Acacias’ control.
Either
control of acacias – or -acacia control might be better wording - and at many other places through the manuscript.
Table 1
the wording for ring barking is perhaps clumsy, ring barking can be performed on rough bark trees as well as smooth.
‘Until the ground surface-‘does this mean that bark is removed from the point of incision to the ground surface, if so what is the starting point height above the ground.
Figure 1A
For those areas marked No Acacias, might there have been potentially invasive acacias in private gardens?
What is the difference between those areas marked in light blue and those in dark blue?
The maps refer to mainland Portugal. International readers might be interested in knowing whether or not there is an actual or potential Acacia problem in the Azores or Madeira. Investigation of these areas was not part of the study, but as part of the background information a reference to the islands might be appropriate.
Figure 4
prescribed fire is towards the bottom of the control methods.
However, given the increasing frequency of forest fires importable in recent years, how many of the areas which have an Acacia problem had been burnt previously?
lines 280-281
presumably, at least in part, reflects that the responders did not work on programs addressing those species, or that they were no individuals of the particular species within there areas of operation?
Line 395 et seq
The operational stage of biological control is relatively inexpensive, but there are very high costs in developing biological control methods given the need to ensure that introduced potential control species do not attack other species for which control is not sought. The necessary studies have to be conducted in quarantine facilities where escape is not possible, and individual studies must be conducted over a number of years.
Are those early stages of research into potential controls conducted in Portugal or are findings extrapolated from studies done elsewhere?
What is the risk that more species will become problems in the future- how rigorous in practise is quarantine inspection and control at seaports, airports and land crossings into Portugal. The situation on paper may not correspond to reality.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English is generally fine- but I have pointed to a small number of modifications required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Thank you very much for your review. All your suggestions have been considered. Below you can find a report on the changes made.
There are a number of issues which need to be addressed. They start with the title -Australia acacias(wattles) - Certainly there are many examples of acacia species whose natural habitat is in Australia which have become major invasive problems in several continents. Of the species which are recognised as problematic in Portugal the majority are of Australian origin. However, Acacia karroo Is not an Australian species -its natural habitat is in Africa and it has been introduced into Australia, where its spread is regarded with concern.
In discussing Acacia, nomenclatural problems arise because of the different taxonomies employed in different publications. Within Africa a number of the plants which have been referred to as Acacia for more than a century now belong to different genera. However ,any wattle which has origin in Australia will still be an Acacia regardless of what taxonomy is adopted
Reply: We tried to address your comment and suggestion throughout the manuscript by reviewing the wording.
Line 13 ‘Alien tree species in forests'..The wording here may reflect a particular concept of forest, but trees can also invade woodland and savanna. For the purposes of this manuscript how is alien defined? In geographically extensive countries invasion of trees beyond their natural distribution but still within the same country /jurisdiction can occur. For example a number of species of wattle are considered invasive in Australia outside their natural distribution range - such as Cootamundra wattle, Acacia baileyana, which is endemic to a very small area, but as a result of being planted in gardens , has now spread into bush well outside its original distribution.
Reply: “in forests” was removed from the sentence, for clarity.
Line 36 As well as sea journeys there were also land journeys which were possible between continents between North and South America, between Europe and Asia and between Papua New Guinea and Australia. Not all the species which have spread beyond their natural range were deliberately planted, others may have had their movement facilitated and become established without being planted by humans. At different times and different places the methods of transport and establishment for the same species may have varied. For those species which have become established in Portugal, were there ever industrial uses such as production of tannin-which was, for example, a major reason for plantings in Africa, or was their introduction accidental. Was there ever a commercial industry of cut inflorescences, or was deliberate planting initially mostly in gardens?
Reply: We add “land journeys” to the sentence. Concerning commercial uses, tannin and citations on the topic were also added to this paragraph.
Line 43 Competition between native and invading species may reduce the number of individuals of the native species but are there any proven cases where total extinction due to invasion has occurred.
Reply: There are no proven cases of total extinction in Portugal.
Line 44- 45 Clumsy wording Perhaps could be better worded as ,, but only since 1990 did research on invasive alien trees expand significantly, an interest in the topic continues to grow today
Reply: Sentence was changed accordingly.
Line 67 Acacia mearnsii is native to Australia, but the type specimen is from east Africa. It had been introduced to Africa from Australia before it had been named. It' spread in Africa, where it is a major problem, was mostly due to it being considered an important species for the tannin industry.
Reply: Thank you for the interesting information.
Lines 70-71What is the country in which A dealbata occurs across the entire mainland.?
Reply: Sentence was corrected.
Line 74’ ‘dominant’ rather than’ dominated’
Reply: In this case, it is dominated because it refers to stands where these trees have less representativeness than other species. Sentence was modified for clarity.
Line 86Monitoring of recovered areas is important but monitoring of recovery is equally necessary.
Reply: Sentence was modified and recovery was introduced.
Line 88 ‘sensitizing citizens’ - is there a better word than sensitizing?
Reply: Yes, we changed to “raising awareness”.
Line 91 Acacias’ control. Either control of acacias – or -acacia control might be better wording - and at many other places through the manuscript.
Reply: The change to “acacia control” was made throughout the manuscript.
Table 1 the wording for ring barking is perhaps clumsy, ring barking can be performed on rough bark trees as well as smooth. ‘Until the ground surface-‘does this mean that bark is removed from the point of incision to the ground surface, if so what is the starting point height above the ground.
Reply: Several articles by authors who studied this technique and its effectiveness, such as, Justice Muvengwi, Monicah Mbiba, Luke Jimu, Admore Mureva, Brighton Dodzo, An assessment of the effectiveness of cut and ring barking as a method for control of invasive Acacia mearnsii in Nyanga National Park, Zimbabwe, Forest Ecology and Management, 427, 2018, p 1-6, 10.1016/j.foreco.2018.05.034, use these terms. We did not find a shared opinion regarding cutting height and ring width.
Figure 1A For those areas marked No Acacias, might there have been potentially invasive acacias in private gardens?
Reply: Unfortunately, the available information does not allow us to reach that level of detail to confirm or deny it.
What is the difference between those areas marked in light blue and those in dark blue?
Reply: As it is explained in the caption of Figure 1, municipalities with the presence of acacia according to one source (which is either citizen science or official forest data) are in light blue; municipalities with the presence of acacia according to two sources (citizen science and official forest data) are in dark blue. The terms light and dark blue were added to the caption for clarity.
The maps refer to mainland Portugal. International readers might be interested in knowing whether or not there is an actual or potential Acacia problem in the Azores or Madeira. Investigation of these areas was not part of the study, but as part of the background information a reference to the islands might be appropriate.
Reply: A reference to Madeira and Azores was introduced in lines 71-72.
Figure 4 prescribed fire is towards the bottom of the control methods. However, given the increasing frequency of forest fires importable in recent years, how many of the areas which have an Acacia problem had been burnt previously?
Reply: It is a very interesting question for further investigation. However, the data we have available for this paper does not allow us to answer it properly.
lines 280-281 presumably, at least in part, reflects that the responders did not work on programs addressing those species, or that they were no individuals of the particular species within there areas of operation?
Reply: We tried to address this question in the discussion section by saying that some acacias are very similar to other species, making it difficult to differentiate them, which may have caused constraints when answering this part of the survey.
Line 395 et seq The operational stage of biological control is relatively inexpensive, but there are very high costs in developing biological control methods given the need to ensure that introduced potential control species do not attack other species for which control is not sought. The necessary studies have to be conducted in quarantine facilities where escape is not possible, and individual studies must be conducted over a number of years.
Are those early stages of research into potential controls conducted in Portugal or are findings extrapolated from studies done elsewhere?
Reply: We agree with your opinion. In 2010, colleagues at the University of Coimbra proposed biological control using Trichilogaste acaciaelongifoliae. Starting this year, all necessary analyses were conducted in the laboratory of the same university. In 2015, following an application and consultation with the national phytosanitary authorities and the European Commission, the Portuguese Society received approval for using Trichilogaster sp. (Shaw et al, 16). We added information regarding your question in lines 405-408.
What is the risk that more species will become problems in the future- how rigorous in practise is quarantine inspection and control at seaports, airports and land crossings into Portugal. The situation on paper may not correspond to reality.
Reply: We agree with your opinion, but this question is beyond the scope of this article, though it is very interesting for further research.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
