Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Plant Species Classification and Diversity of the Understory Vegetation in Oak Forests of Swat, Pakistan

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(23), 11372; https://doi.org/10.3390/app112311372

by Ataur Rahman¹, Nasrullah Khan^1,*, Kishwar Ali²

, Rafi Ullah¹

, Muhammad Ezaz Hasan Khan², David Aaron Jones²

and Inayat Ur Rahman³

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Reviewer 4: Anonymous

Reviewer 5: Anonymous

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(23), 11372; https://doi.org/10.3390/app112311372

Submission received: 2 October 2021 / Revised: 15 November 2021 / Accepted: 26 November 2021 / Published: 1 December 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

How to classify plant species and compare the diversity of different vegetation types is a traditional question, resolving which will be helpful for preventing loss of species diversity. Different with almost previous study, this paper focus on the understory vegetation in Oak dominated forests of Swat and research the affecting factors of understory species composition. However, there are some small problems in this paper and I suggest the authors to pay attention to the method description and formats. My major comments are: 1) Method description should be clearer. For example, the 300 plots in 30 stands are 10 plots in each stand or not? How you calculate the diversity indexes? In Table 3, which method you used to analyze the significant differences between the three groups? Also, I think using 23 variables to explain 30 stands is not suitable, so you may need to do correlation analysis of these variables before doing redundancy analysis to choose fewer variables without high correlationship. 2) The writing especially the format in your paper is very poor. You should use three-line table and explain the meaning of each acronym. The citation format of text and reference has some problems too. You must check these things carefully. 3) The logic between every part of your results and discussion is a bit lack.

Below are minor comments:

Line 3 it is no need to use a conjunction to connect the letters A and T of the word vegetation.

Line 23 delete among all 23 variables?

Line 25 ecology à ecosystem?

Line 35 how to prove the most useful source of botanical information of a particular area is its floristic checklists?

Line 56 work à function?

Line 70 miss back parenthesis after 18.

Line 72-73 23 and 24 are red, I think you forget to change the color.

Line 88-89 the formats of latitude and longitude are not right.

Line 102-103 if there are 10 plots in every stand or not?

Line 104 you refer to shrubs and herbaceous plants growing on the forest floor, but it is a kind of tree in your research.

Line 108 you measured the number of individuals of plant species, but we all know, it is difficult to define the individual of plant. I think you can use quantity to represent number of individuals.

Line 133-144 (1) It missed serial number before Data Analysis. (2) How you know the coefficient 300 in equation Ⅰ? (3) You didn’t describe the means of F₃(x), D₃(x) and C₃(x). (4) You should show how to calculate the species richness, ?-diversity (Shannon index, H) and ?-diversity. (5) You should show how you did significance analysis.

Line 145 delete and discussion.

Fig. 2 I couldn’t see the label of Tree 2% clearly, you could change its color.

Line 193-194 (1) Fig. 3 à Fig. 4? (2) It should use a conjunction to connect the letters E and T of the word vegetation.

Fig. 4 (1) The typeface of legend in Fig. 4 is not unified with other figures. (2) I couldn’t see the labels in pie diagram of Fig. 4 clearly.

Line 205-206 Fig. 4 à Fig. 3?

Line 210-212 (1) You must check the expression of abbreviation explains. (2) Some abbreviation may be not explained, such as NAA.

Line 215-216 Figure 2 à Fig. 5?

Line 221-227 What the numbers in parentheses mean?

Line 251-255 (1) What are the three axes represent? Three groups in your paper? (2) Why you use 28 variables in Table 6, but 23 variables in Table 5?

Table 2 specie code à species code?

Table 3 there are some questions in the format of the table, you should check it carefully.

Table 6 I think it would best to mark the numbers which have explicit correlation.

Line 276-277 what is the association between your findings and other researches’?

Line 317 I couldn’t understand found in [7] and [42].

Line 348 there is lack of the subject before the word investigated.

Line 356-357 how to prove It was observed that species diversity increased during the spring and summer season and decreased later in the autumn?

Author Response

Reviewer 1

General comment: How to classify plant species and compare the diversity of different vegetation types is a traditional question, resolving which will be helpful for preventing loss of species diversity. Different with almost previous study, this paper focus on the understory vegetation in Oak dominated forests of Swat and researches the affecting factors of understory species composition. However, there are some small problems in this paper and I suggest the authors to pay attention to the method description and formats. My major comments are: 1) Method description should be clearer. For example, the 300 plots in 30 stands are 10 plots in each stand or not? How you calculate the diversity indexes? In Table 3, which method you used to analyse the significant differences between the three groups? Also, I think using 23 variables to explain 30 stands is not suitable, so you may need to do correlation analysis of these variables before doing redundancy analysis to choose fewer variables without high correlations. 2) The writing especially the format in your paper is very poor. You should use three-line table and explain the meaning of each acronym. The citation format of text and reference has some problems too. You must check these things carefully. 3) The logic between every part of your results and discussion is a bit lack.

Reply: The reviewer suggestions are thoroughly studied and consider in the revised version line by line. The number of plot and size of plot were added along with tables formatting and confusions in the tables are clarified and justified. Each acronyms and significance level in the statistical analysis is added. Reference are cross checked and corrected. The format was rechecked and corrected according to journal style. In addition to major revisions and suggestion are considered line-by-line in review and correct accordingly to improve the quality of the manuscript. The portions of the manuscript were revised in the manner to make a link between them for better understanding.

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

Comment 1: Line 3 it is no need to use a conjunction to connect the letters A and T of the word vegetation.

Reply 1: conjunction removed

Comment 2: Line 23 delete among all 23 variables?

Reply 2: Deleted as suggested

Comment 3: Line 25 ecology à ecosystem?

Reply: Ecosystem more suitable and replaced

Comment 4: Line 35 how to prove the most useful source of botanical information of a particular area are its floristic checklists?

Reply: The floristic check list provide information’s about the potential value of useful flora present in particular area. The usefulness of the flora is well evident in the proceeding lines of the introduction with well cited literature.

Comment 4: Line 56 work à function?

Reply: Replaced work as function

Comment 5: Line 70 miss back parenthesis after 18.

Reply: Parenthesis added

Comment 5: Line 72-73 23 and 24 are red; I think you forget to change the colour.

Reply: corrected

Comment 6: Line 88-89 the formats of latitude and longitude are not right.

Reply: corrected

Comment 7: Line 102-103 if there are 10 plots in every stand or not?

Reply: Number of plots/stand added

Comment 8: Line 104 you refer to shrubs and herbaceous plants growing on the forest floor, but it is a kind of tree in your research.

Reply: The only tree species included in the understory is the Xanthoxylum armatum However, at the time of sampling the plant was found in shrubby stage and therefore was included in the understory.

Comment 9: Line 108 you measured the number of individuals of plant species, but we all know, it is difficult to define the individual of plant. I think you can use quantity to represent number of individuals.

Reply: The sentence were revised for removing the confusion in data collection procedure

Comment 10: Line 133-144 (1) it missed serial number before Data Analysis. (2) How you know the coefficient 300 in equation? (3) You didn’t describe the means of F₃(x), D₃(x) and C₃(x). (4) You should show how to calculate the species richness, ?-diversity (Shannon index, H) and ?-diversity. (5) You should show how you did significance analysis.

Reply: (1) Serial number added

(2) It is the summation of relative frequency density and cover. In addition the sequences of the equations are changes for better understanding.

(3) Described now

(4) Diversity indices properly described and mathematically expressed

(5) Significance level added in methodology and in other relevant tables in analysis

Comment 11: Line 145 delete and discussion.

Reply: The lines can be retained as its part of the methodology but is modified for better understanding.

Comment 12: Fig. 2 couldn’t see the label of Tree 2% clearly; you could change its colour.

Reply: Visualised by contrast colour

Comment 13: Line 193-194 (1) Fig. 3 à Fig. 4? (2) It should use a conjunction to connect the letters E and T of the word vegetation.

Reply: (1) Figures revised (2) sentence structure; in new sentence no conjunction is required

Comment 14: Fig. 4 (1) The type face of legend in Fig. 4 is not unified with other figures. (2) I couldn’t see the labels in pie diagram of Fig. 4 clearly.

Reply: Figures revised having unified legends

Comment 15: Line 205-206 Fig. 4 à Fig. 3?

Reply: Figure corrected

Comment 16: Line 210-212 (1) you must check the expression of abbreviation explains. (2) Some abbreviation may be not explained, such as NAA.

Reply: (1) Abbreviations checked (2) Missing abbreviation added

Comment 17: Line 215-216 Figure 2 à Fig. 5?

Reply: Figure number corrected

Comment 18: Line 221-227 what the numbers in parentheses mean?

Reply: The value were of Importance value index which is incorporated and edited in the text accordingly

Comment 19: Line 251-255 (1) what are the three axes represent? Three groups in your paper? (2) Why you use 28 variables in Table 6, but 23 variables in Table 5?

Reply: (1) These are the ordination biplot axes not the group number

(2) The tables are revisited. Table 5 have 24 variables and table 6 have 28 variables, three variables have additionally been added in RDA analysis. The variables added in Total IVI, Quecus IVI and Quercus Basal Area as these are important variable that can affect the understory vegetation and already been included in phytosociological attributes therefore were not included in table which describe the environmental variables only.

Comment 20: Table 2 specie code à species code?

Reply: The code is for the respective species in each column

Comment 21: Table 3 there are some questions in the format of the table, you should check it carefully.

Reply: Table formatted checked and corrected. In addition the analyses presented are also refined.

Comment 22: Table 6 I think it would best to mark the numbers which have explicit correlation.

Reply: Significant figures are marked by steric

Comment 23: Line 276-277 what is the association between your findings and other researches’?

Reply: The association is in terms of plants physiognomy which is explained

Comment 24: Line 317 I couldn’t understand found in [7] and [42].

Reply: Clarified as these are citation indicating the research work of researchers

Comment 25: Line 348 there is lack of the subject before the word investigated.

Reply: the subject is mentioned

Comment 26: Line 356-357 how to prove It was observed that species diversity increased during the spring and summer season and decreased later in the autumn?

Reply: We predict this on the basis that the understory vegetation were usually annual herbs therefore mostly disappear in the autumn and present only in the form of seed bank and therefore species diversity in the autumn would be much lower than that of spring.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper investigates the diversity of the understory vegetation in oak forests of the Swat region.

The knowledge of the floristic composition of an area is an essential information for every management and conservation project, so I think the topic of the paper could be important, but I point out the following comments and observation:

I feel the paper would benefit from a hard language check (even if I am myself a non-native English speaking people). Sometimes it is quite difficult to understand the thought of the Authors because of the language.

The paper reports some ordinary observations, such as the explanation of the use of Raunkiaer classification and of the biological spectra and the setting of the herbarium: even the bachelor students know how to do it. I think this is not consistent with the level of the journal

The paper needs to be scanned for formal errors, such as latin names of the species not in italic (Berberis lycium, Convolvulus arvensis in line 221, and other names in the following lines). The names of the taxa mentioned in table 1 and 2 don’t follow the taxonomic nomenclatural rules (basic rules!). I’d like the updating of the binomials according to the currently accepted nomenclature (i.e. Plant of the World on line). There is a typing mistakes (Plantiganaceae family): more attention to the text is suggeted.

Some referencies in the text are not compliant with the requested format (i.e. line 69).

Materials and Methods

The bibliography sometimes is not congruent with the topics: for example [37] and [38] are mentioned in the description of the Kjeldahl procedures and of the methods for the density, but these papers are related to ethnobotany, they don’t matter with soil analysis.

The formula of line 137 is not explained: what are F, D and C?

The choise of the RDA is not justified (why precisely this analysis?)

The software used in the data analysis is not mentioned

Results and discussion

Fig 2 is very banal, the percentages in the text are enough, and the comments are quite obvious.

In table 1 are reported the chorotypes of the species but they are not commented in the text. In addition, I noticed that comments are quite shallow.

Discussion

Some considerations are redundant: some observations are reported in the previous paragraph.

Conclusion

In the beginning the statement “The current study indicates that Swat has rich floristic diversity” is not reasonable: how can the Authors say this on the basis of a list of 58 species? To do this assertion a complete floristic check of the area is requested, it is not legitimate to inference a so general assumption from a partial census.

Referencies

The references are not standardized: some citations are in capital.

In conclusion

I’m sorry to reject this paper because there is a lot of field work and a good data analysis, but some critical issues are crucial, so I think it doesn’t fit the level of the journal

Author Response

Reviewer 2

General comments: The paper investigates the diversity of the understory vegetation in oak forests of the Swat region. The knowledge of the floristic composition of an area is an essential information for every management and conservation project, so I think the topic of the paper could be important, but I point out the following comments and observation: I feel the paper would benefit from a hard language check (even if I am myself a non-native English speaking people). Sometimes it is quite difficult to understand the thought of the Authors because of the language. The paper reports some ordinary observations, such as the explanation of the use of Raunkiaer classification and of the biological spectra and the setting of the herbarium: even the bachelor students know how to do it. I think this is not consistent with the level of the journal. The paper needs to be scanned for formal errors, such as latin names of the species not in italic (Berberis lycium, Convolvulus arvensis in line 221, and other names in the following lines). The names of the taxa mentioned in table 1 and 2 don’t follow the taxonomic nomenclatural rules (basic rules!). I’d like the updating of the binomials according to the currently accepted nomenclature (i.e. Plant of the World on line). There is a typing mistake (Plantiganaceae family): more attention to the text is suggested.

Reply: The comments and suggestion of the reviewer are thoroughly considered and revisions were made accordingly. The language is improved in many areas where necessary. The study is justified by many reasons as Oak dominated forest are major forests of the region and many earlier studies conducted were non-numerical and less comprehensive reports about the forest structure and function of such ecosystem and the other environmental and overstory factors that affect the understory vegetation’s. The binomials were all corrected according to the rule and standard format of Plant world online were followed. The other related topographic mistakes were corrected. The paper is thoroughly scanned for formatting and spelling mistake for improvement suggested by reviewer in each and every part, to better organizes the text and explanation of the material as suggested by reviewer.

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

Some references in the text are not compliant with the requested format (i.e. line 69).

Materials and Methods

Comment 1: The bibliography sometimes is not congruent with the topics: for example [37] and [38] are mentioned in the description of the Kjeldahl procedures and of the methods for the density, but these papers are related to ethnobotany, they don’t matter with soil analysis.

Reply: References cross checked and corrected

Comment 2: The formula of line 137 is not explained: what are F, D and C?

Reply: The parameters are explained in the relevant section

Comment 3: The choice of the RDA is not justified (why precisely this analysis?)

Reply: RDA analysis justification added in comparison to DCA and CCA ordination.

Comment 4: The software used in the data analysis is not mentioned

Reply: Software’s used in the paper are mentioned in relevant section

Results and discussion

Comment 5: Fig 2 is very banal, the percentages in the text are enough, and the comments are quite obvious.

Reply: Figure and text revised

Comment 6: In table 1 are reported the chorotypes of the species but they are not commented in the text. In addition, I noticed that comments are quite shallow.

Reply: The chorotypes were uniformed and described in text were along with the revision of remaining text.

Discussion

Comment 6: Some considerations are redundant: some observations are reported in the previous paragraph.

Reply: The discussion were thoroughly edited in order to remove redundant statement and also improved where necessary.

Conclusion

Comment 7: In the beginning the statement “The current study indicates that Swat has rich floristic diversity” is not reasonable: how can the Authors say this on the basis of a list of 58 species? To do this assertion a complete floristic check of the area is requested, it is not legitimate to inference a so general assumption from a partial census.

Reply: No doubt Swat is floristically a rich zone where hundreds of species are reported from the region the in Flora of Pakistan. But, in the current study we evaluate the understory floristic composition of the Oak dominated forest and the statement was given in response to the previous work of Beg and Mirza (1984) who reported very few species (36) Oak dominated forests compared to our study. They reported fully conserved Oak forest which is now disturbed by many anthropogenic activities. The conclusion text is also revised in many places for improvement. In addition the low diversity of Oak dominated forest is also due to its close canopy and strong allelopathic affect (McPherson et al. 1972; Hashoum et al. 2017) where only few understory species capable to grow. For example in contrast to our study Rahman et al. in (2017) reported 98 understory species from Pinus wallachiana dominated forests in the same region.

References

Comment 8: The references are not standardized: some citations are in capital.

Reply: References cross checked and corrected

In conclusion

I’m sorry to reject this paper because there is a lot of field work and a good data analysis, but some critical issues are crucial, so I think it doesn’t fit the level of the journal

Reply: Dear reviewer we revised the article in each and every part i.e. Introduction, M and M, Results, Discussion and Conclusion to improve the quality of the manuscript and make it according to the needs of the journal. We hope that the paper is now improved in quality of each and every portion and we believed that it will fit now in the scope of the journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Brief summary

This study deals with the plant species classification and diversity of the understory vegetation in Oak forests of Swat, Pakistan. In total 58 plant species were recorded and the analysis of the Life forms of the understory vegetation of Swat showed the dominance of the Hemicryptophytes followed by Nanophanerophytes and therophytes. They also analyzed the data of the thirty stands of oak forest using the ward's agglomerative clustering method. The analysis reveals three main groups with different species diversity among them. The RDA analysis revealed that seven variables (i.e., latitude, elevation, clay, wilting point, bulk density, saturation and electric conductivity) influenced the understory vegetation of oak dominated forests.

However, the submitted manuscript needs a major revision. I have listed major and minor concerns below.

The authors used RDA methods to correlate the environmental variables with the understory vegetation data without mentioning which software was used. This information should be added with detail in the Materials and Methods section.
The authors used the ward's agglomerative clustering method. The reasons that led them to choose this method should be mentioned in the Materials and Methods section along with the appropriate literature.
L. 56: Delete “structure and work” and write “structure and functions”
L. 70: Delete “and” before “soil nutrients”
L. 73-76: Rewrite the sentence as follows “In coniferous forests, hardwood forests, and mixed-wood forests, understory vegetation has been well studied [22, 25], and the latter two types of forests are generally agreed to create more favorable conditions for their biodiversity conservation and restoration than coniferous forests [17].”
L. 77-79: Rewrite the sentence as follows “The knowledge of the floristic composition, geographic distribution and ecological conditions of forest ecosystems is essential for the implementation of a rational management plan.”
L. 88: Delete space before zero (0)
L. 167: Delete “each” after (2%)
L. 175-206: Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 should be changed. Fig. 4 should be placed in the position of Fig. 3 and vice versa.
L. 197-198: add “with” before the number of the species.
L. 198: The term “single species” should be replaced by the term “individual species”
L. 208: Add “,”
L. 208-209: Rewrite the legend as follows “List of the plant species with the family names, growth form/habit, chorotype, life form and leaf size classes that were recorded in understory vegetation of oak dominated forests.”
L. 216-216: Delete “Figure 2” and write “Figure 5”
L. 221-227: The name of the plant species should be written in italics. Check throughout manuscript.
L. 228-229: The alignment of the legend should be corrected.
L. 231-237: Rewrite the sentences as follow: “Group III had the highest species richness (10.3), ?-diversity (2.74) and beta diversity (9.85) and the highest value of Margalef index (3.95). On the contrary, Group I had the highest values of Pielous and Simpson index with 0.97 and 7.13 respectively (Table 3).”
L. 253: Correct the value of the wilting point from (? = -0.74) to ? = -0.374
L257-261: The alignment of the legend should be corrected. In addition, the name of the plant species should be written in italics.
L.270-310: The authors repeat some of the results without adequately supporting the results with other published data.
L. 273: Add “species” after 10 and replace the term “single species” by the term “individual species”
L. 331-333: Rewrite the sentence as follows: “Group II was less diverse in terms of understory species numbering in total 25 plant species. In this group Calamintha vulgaris, Dryopteris stewertii and Plantago lanceolata were the dominant species (11.5, 9.34 and 9.86 respectively).”
L. 454: Delete the “33.”at the beginning of the reference

Author Response

Reviewer 3

General comments: This study deals with the plant species classification and diversity of the understory vegetation in Oak forests of Swat, Pakistan. In total 58 plant species were recorded and the analysis of the Life forms of the understory vegetation of Swat showed the dominance of the Hemicryptophytes followed by Nanophanerophytes and therophytes. They also analysed the data of the thirty stands of oak forest using the ward's agglomerative clustering method. The analysis reveals three main groups with different species diversity among them. The RDA analysis revealed that seven variables (i.e., latitude, elevation, clay, wilting point, bulk density, saturation and electric conductivity) influenced the understory vegetation of oak dominated forests.

Reply: Thank you for understanding and interpreting our results in nice way. Each and every comment is thoroughly studied and incorporated in the text, table and figure for improvement of the research article.

However, the submitted manuscript needs a major revision. I have listed major and minor concerns below.

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

Comments 1: The authors used RDA methods to correlate the environmental variables with the understory vegetation data without mentioning which software was used. This information should be added with detail in the Materials and Methods section.

Reply: The software’s used and analysis performed are mentioned along with the relevant literature

Comments 2: The authors used the ward's agglomerative clustering method. The reasons that led them to choose this method should be mentioned in the Materials and Methods section along with the appropriate literature.

Reply: Justification for the methods is added in M and M section.

Comments 3: L. 56: Delete “structure and work” and write “structure and functions”

Reply: Followed accordingly

Comments 4: L. 70: Delete “and” before “soil nutrients”

Reply: Deleted

Comments 5: L. 73-76: Rewrite the sentence as follows “In coniferous forests, hardwood forests, and mixed-wood forests, understory vegetation has been well studied [22, 25], and the latter two types of forests are generally agreed to create more favourable conditions for their biodiversity conservation and restoration than coniferous forests [17].”

Reply: Followed accordingly

Comments 6: L. 77-79: Rewrite the sentence as follows “The knowledge of the floristic composition, geographic distribution and ecological conditions of forest ecosystems is essential for the implementation of a rational management plan.”

Reply: Followed as suggested

Comments 7: L. 88: Delete space before zero (0)

Reply: Followed accordingly

Comments 8: L. 167: Delete “each” after (2%)

Reply: Deleted as suggested

Comments 9: L. 175-206: Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 should be changed. Fig. 4 should be placed in the position of Fig. 3 and vice versa.

Reply: Figures and text revised

Comments 10: L. 197-198: add “with” before the number of the species.

Reply: Added as suggested

Comments 11: L. 198: The term “single species” should be replaced by the term “individual species”

Reply: Replaces as suggested

Comments 12: L. 208: Add “,”

Reply: Added accordingly

Comments 13: L. 208-209: Rewrite the legend as follows “List of the plant species with the family names, growth form/habit, chorotype, life form and leaf size classes that were recorded in understory vegetation of oak dominated forests.”

Reply: Rewritten as suggested

Comments 14: L. 216-216: Delete “Figure 2” and write “Figure 5”

Reply: Numbered correctly as suggested

Comments 15: L. 221-227: The name of the plant species should be written in italics. Check throughout manuscript.

Reply: Italicised

Comments 16: L. 228-229: The alignment of the legend should be corrected.

Reply: Corrected as suggested

Comments 17: L. 231-237: Rewrite the sentences as follow: “Group III had the highest species richness (10.3), ?-diversity (2.74) and beta diversity (9.85) and the highest value of Margalef index (3.95). On the contrary, Group I had the highest values of Pielous and Simpson index with 0.97 and 7.13 respectively (Table 3).”

Reply: Rewritten as suggested

Comments 18: L. 253: Correct the value of the wilting point from (? = -0.74) to ? = -0.374

Reply: Corrected as suggested

Comments 19: L257-261: The alignment of the legend should be corrected. In addition, the name of the plant species should be written in italics.

Reply: Alignment corrected and species name are written italicised

Comments 20: L.270-310: The authors repeat some of the results without adequately supporting the results with other published data.

Reply: Discussion is revisited with appropriate correction and redundant text is deleted accordingly

Comments 21: L. 273: Add “species” after 10 and replace the term “single species” by the term “individual species”

Reply: Followed as suggested

Comments 22: L. 331-333: Rewrite the sentence as follows: “Group II was less diverse in terms of understory species numbering in total 25 plant species. In this group Calamintha vulgaris, Dryopteris stewertii and Plantago lanceolata were the dominant species (11.5, 9.34 and 9.86 respectively).”

Reply: Rewritten as suggested

Comments 23: L. 454: Delete the “33.”At the beginning of the reference

Reply: Deleted

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Good job

The current study provides detailed information on plant biodiversity and the classification of lush vegetation species in Swat, Pakistan. But its grouping in the three community types needs to be better explained based on environmental variables i.e. topographic and edaphic soil conditions (see bibliography eg. Knudsen et al., 2017; Triantafyllidis et al., 2020).
In the 2.4 paragraph are mentioned the methods used for some of the environmental parameters (eg. pH, SOC, TN, BD). Only these have you measured? In 3.5 paragraph (in the three community types - vegetation groups) other parameters are also reported, please describe their method analysis.
As it is already known, not only plants respond to soil conditions but they also affect them, while changes in land-use affect input and output fluxes of nutrients and carbon in soils (see bibliography eg. Dupouey et al., 2002, Triantafyllidis et al., 2020).
In Table 5, the units (e.g., for K mg/kg or ???/100??; for EC ??/?? etc) for each environmental variable should be reported, also the analysis method for each environmental variable should be reported, too. Also, in Table 5 e.g., for the clay content reported in group I: 16.37 ± 1.17 in group II: 17.5 ± 2.2 and in group III: 12.11± 1.02. you must decide to use only one decimal place or two (see all parameters).
Are there statistically significant differences among the three groups for some of the environmental parameters (either climatic or edaphic)?
A supplementary material with the analyzed data should be provided.
The conclusions are not clear: slope? elevation? and edaphic conditions? according to the report and their significant impact on the species diversity at a microclimatic stage.
You measured SOC (2.4 paragraph) but in table 5 you reported SOM. Have you converted SOC into SOM (please reported).

Author Response

Reviewer 4

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

Comment 1: The current study provides detailed information on plant biodiversity and the classification of lush vegetation species in Swat, Pakistan. But its grouping in the three community types needs to be better explained based on environmental variables i.e. topographic and edaphic soil conditions (see bibliography e.g. Knudsen et al., 2017; Triantafyllidis et al., 2020).

Reply: The bibliography suggested articles are retrieved, studied and incorporated in the relevant places where necessarily needed.

Comment 2: In the 2.4 paragraph are mentioned the methods used for some of the environmental parameters (e.g. pH, SOC, TN, BD). Only these have you measured? In 3.5 paragraph (in the three community types - vegetation groups) other parameters are also reported, please describe their method analysis.

Reply: Soil parameters and its determination procedure are elaborated and the phytosociological analyses performed are also explained in the section 2.5.

Comment 3: As it is already known, not only plants respond to soil conditions but they also affect them, while changes in land-use affect input and output fluxes of nutrients and carbon in soils (see bibliography e.g. Dupouey et al., 2002, Triantafyllidis et al., 2020).

Reply: A paragraph in the discussion added to highlight the effects of environmental variables on the understory vegetation. The discussion is also improved by adding material from the bibliography suggested.

Comment 4: In Table 5, the units (e.g., for K mg/kg or ???/100??; for EC ??/?? etc) for each environmental variable should be reported, also the analysis method for each environmental variable should be reported, too. Also, in Table 5 e.g., for the clay content reported in group I: 16.37 ± 1.17 in group II: 17.5 ± 2.2 and in group III: 12.11± 1.02. you must decide to use only one decimal place or two (see all parameters).

Reply: The data in tables are properly rounded up to two decimal points.

Comment 5: Are there statistically significant differences among the three groups for some of the environmental parameters (either climatic or edaphic)?

Reply: The significance was tested with ANOVA followed by post-hoc HSD test which is added in the relevant tables i.e. table 3 and 4.

Comment 6: A supplementary material with the analysed data should be provided.

Reply: Supplementary material excel sheet attached

Comment 7: The conclusions are not clear: slope? Elevation? And edaphic conditions? according to the report and their significant impact on the species diversity at a microclimatic stage.

Reply: Impact of important environmental and overstory variables on the understory vegetation are elaborated in the conclusion.

Comment 8: You measured SOC (2.4 paragraphs) but in table 5 you reported SOM. Have you converted SOC into SOM (please report).

Reply: Soil organic carbon was determined which were than used to estimate the soil organic carbon.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear Authors,

I report below a series of important improvements and corrections, but many other suggestions are reported in the attached revised manuscript and which I recommend you to follow slavishly to try to raise the level of the presentation of your work.

First of all, something that puzzles me is that in the title and in the text you deal with understory vegetation in Oak forests, but in the text you never refer to all of these kind of forests. You mention a few oak species (even in a wrong manner) in lines 260-261. I think it is important that in the Introduction section you reserve a part for the description of these forests and, also in Discussion section, you discussing why they are important and to be studied their understory. You must also indicate the scientific names of the oaks species present, complete with their authorships.

Introduction and Materials and Methods sections need to be integrated with more Refererences. The first sentence needs some references and I suggested two. In Materials and Methods you should indicate the specific references used when you state "the published literature" and for scientific nomenclature. The latter, in particular, needs to be well checked through the whole text, including in the tables. Consider if the use of the word "species" can be changed with "taxon"/"taxa".

Check properly tables, figures and their captions: there are many errors and there is a few of confusion in them. Also footnotes should be well checked.

Once again, I recommend to follow all my numerous suggestions and corrections to try improving your manuscript and hoping to publish it in Applied Sciences journal.

Best wishes.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 5

Dear Authors,

I have carefully read your manuscript entitled "Plant species classification and diversity of the understory vegetation in Oak forests of Swat, Pakistan" and found it very interesting. It might have a place in Applied Sciences journal: however, I find it very weak in several parts and it needs of major improvements in many respects. I report below a series of important improvements and corrections, but many other suggestions are reported in the attached revised manuscript and which I recommend you to follow slavishly to try to raise the level of the presentation of your work.

Reply: Thank you so much for the appreciation and vitally important comments on the paper for improvement and highlighting the area that can better be explained for understanding and improving the paper after suggestion in a unique way. The correction mentioned in the text in pdf version are also vital for the paper improvement and are incorporated accordingly line-by-line.

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment: First of all, something that puzzles me is that in the title and in the text you deal with understory vegetation in Oak forests, but in the text you never refer to all of these kinds of forests. You mention a few oak species (even in a wrong manner) in lines 260-261. I think it is important that in the Introduction section you reserve a part for the description of these forests and, also in Discussion section, you discussing why they are important and to be studied their understory. You must also indicate the scientific names of the oaks species present, complete with their authorships.

Reply: The introduction section is revisited in the light of suggestion of the reviewer. Some of the paragraphs are corrected and new materials are added that better explain the title and research undertaken in the Oak dominated forests. The discussion is also revisited and thoroughly revised in the light of the introduction and also provides information about the importance of Oak forest and its understory vegetation and its numerical ecology and environmental factors that are focussed of the current paper.

Introduction and Materials and Methods sections need to be integrated with more References. The first sentence needs some references and I suggested two. In Materials and Methods you should indicate the specific references used when you state "the published literature" and for scientific nomenclature. The latter, in particular, needs to be well checked through the whole text, including in the tables. Consider if the use of the word "species" can be changed with "taxon"/"taxa".

Reply: The references suggested by the reviewer are checked and found suitable to cite in the place and are therefore cited. In addition more reference and subject material are also added in proper way in the introduction for better organization and to highlight the need of the current research and its importance. Tables, Figure and text are also checked thoroughly for topographic mistakes and corrections.

Check properly tables, figures and their captions: there are many errors and there is a few of confusion in them. Also footnotes should be well checked.

Reply: Table and figures legends are checked and revise where necessarily needed. In addition footnotes are also added and explained with each table where needed.

Once again, I recommend to follow all my numerous suggestions and corrections to try improving your manuscript and hoping to publish it in Applied Sciences journal.

Reply: The correction is line-by-line followed in the revised paper and colour red throughout the text for visualization and contrast.

Specific comments in pdf

Abstract

Comment 1: etation

Reply: Conjunction removed

Comment 2: At the beginning of the Abstract section, put a short Introduction.

Reply: Introduction added in the abstract

Comment 3: Please, put life forms with lowercase initial in the whole text.

Reply: Followed accordingly

Comment 4: Please, avoid repeating the same words of the title: it doesn't help to well widespread your future article. Change this keyword with "Quercus".

Reply: Followed accordingly

Introduction

Comment 5: This sentence needs at least one reference. I recommend the following as examples of big and small scale:

Reply: References added as suggested

Comment 6: Please, put life forms with lowercase initial in the whole text.

Reply: Formatted accordingly

Comment 7: Change style formatting.

Reply: Formatted accordingly

Material and Method
Comment 8: Please, for surfaces use every time the same measure unit.

Reply: Followed accordingly

Comment 9: Do you mean "according to"?

Reply: Corrected as suggested

Comment 10: It seems a repetition of the content presented in the line 114.

Reply: Text revised to remove repetition from the text

Comment 11: Please, report some examples of this literature.

Reply: Literature added

Comment 12: Please, report some examples of this literature.

Reply: Literature cited

Comment 13: Since you used several references, please, indicate which work has been used for nomenclature and check all the scientific names in the whole text.

Reply: We used flora of Pakistan and Plant world online for identification of plant species which is mentioned in methodology section now

Comment 14: IV or IVI ?

Reply: The equations and terminologies were carefully revised for clarification

Results:

Comment 15: Since you considered also a section named "4. Discussion", this is only "Results".

Reply: Discussion deleted

Comment 16: Since you have Arenaria spp in your Table 1 (I don't know if it is a single unknown species or more species belonging to the Armeria genus), maybe it is better to refer to "taxa" and not "species" in the whole text.

Reply: The floristic composition has only one species from the genus Arenaria which is now corrected and the whole species names and authorities are thoroughly checked and corrected where needed.

Comment 17: Don't know if this figure is necessary. It doesn't give no more information that is not already simply reported in the text.

Reply: The figure can better visualised the difference of the different life forms specially the dominancy of the herbaceous species which later on in the discussion is explain and provided information about the importance of herbaceous specie dominancy.

Comment 18: Microphanerophytes or nanophanerophytes?

Reply: corrected as directed

Comment: This text is present also in Discussion section (297-303) and for me it fits better there.

Reply: Retained in the discussion deleted from results

Comment 19: Sorry, but something seems wrong... There is not correspondence between Figure 3 and 3.2 paragraphs. Figures 3 and 4 were inverted! Please, check better and write again.

Reply: Figures checked and corrected

Comment 20: Why does Table 1 have the species in alphabetical order of families and Table 2 not?

Reply: Alphabet order of species followed in table 1 and 2

Comment 21: If Tables 1 and 2 report the same plants list, avoid repeating the same columns.

Reply: Repeated column deleted from table 2

Comment 22: sorry, but this is not vegetation: this is a flora.

Reply: Replaced with flora

Comment 23: All the family names not in italics.

Reply: Family names regular font

Comment 24: Not all the chorotype are indicated in full in the footnote. Please, check better.

Reply: Chorotype revised and formatted properly

Comment 25: This represent 1) a single unknown species or 2) more species belonging to the Armeria genus? If 1), please report as "sp." and not in italics.

Reply: Single species corrected in table 1 and 2

Comment 26: Where did these acronyms come from? Please, indicate it with a bibliographic reference here and in References list.

Reply: Proper citation and reference added

Comment 27: At the first mention in the whole text, tables, figures and their captions, please report the scientific names in full, in italics and complete with their authorship. Thereafter, you can report them with the abbreviated genus name and without authorship (e.g.: Berberis lycium Royle at the first mention in the text and then B. lycium).

Reply: Followed the same instruction throughout the manuscript

Comment: 28What mean these numbers within brackets?

Reply: mean IVI and is corrected in the text

Comment 29: Sorry, but this is not vegetation: this is a flora.

Reply: Corrected accordingly

Comment 30: Why do you report this column? Which is its significance?

Reply: Species code is important as in ordination we follow the same code in IVI matrix

Comments 31: Is it a duplicate of the next row?

Reply: Duplication corrected

Comment 31: In italics and in full.

Reply: full and italic name added

Discussion

Comment 32: This doesn't seem like the most suitable reference to justify your current sentence.

Reply: Relevant bibliography added

Comment 33: In general or in your study area?

Reply: In the researcher work cited, Text clarified

Comment 34:?

Reply: Text correct accordingly

Comment 35: As before indicated, put them in lower initial case.

Reply: Followed as suggested

Comment 36: corroborates (?)

Reply: Formatted for correction

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been widely modified, but I suggest some corrections:

- as underlined in the previous revision, fig. 2 has to be deleted

I suggest to delete the text from line 124 to 129 “The collected plant specimens were dried in newspapers/blotting papers, and the newspapers were changed after 24 hours; the procedure was repeated till the complete drying of the specimens. Later, the dried specimens were soaked in a solution of Ethyl alcohol and 2% Mercuric chloride for preservation [34, 35]. These specimens were mounted on a standard herbarium sheet (11.5×17.5 inches). Data in the field notebook was transferred to a herbarium slip (4×6 inches) and then pasted on the right side of the herbarium sheet at the bottom [36].” and to modify line 132 in this way “…and herbarium specimens were made and submitted to….” because I think the methodology to set the herbarium is far too trivial for this journal

Author Response

Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been widely modified, but I suggest some corrections:

Reviewer comment: as underlined in the previous revision, fig. 2 has to be deleted

Author reply: Deleted as suggested and rest of the figures are also numbered and cited correctly in the text.

Reviewer comments: I suggest to delete the text from line 124 to 129 “The collected plant specimens were dried in newspapers/blotting papers, and the newspapers were changed after 24 hours; the procedure was repeated till the complete drying of the specimens. Later, the dried specimens were soaked in a solution of Ethyl alcohol and 2% Mercuric chloride for preservation [34, 35]. These specimens were mounted on a standard herbarium sheet (11.5×17.5 inches). Data in the field notebook was transferred to a herbarium slip (4×6 inches) and then pasted on the right side of the herbarium sheet at the bottom [36].” and to modify line 132 in this way “…and herbarium specimens were made and submitted to….” because I think the methodology to set the herbarium is far too trivial for this journal

Author reply: The portion is deleted and the last sentence is mover to section 2.2 in continuation of the last sentence.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The submitted manuscript needs minor revision. I have listed minor concerns below.

L. 42-44: Rewrite the sentence as follows “Yet, information about the plant dissemination and motherland show diversity in landscapes, topographies, and biological/ecological zones, bolstering the distinctive floristic composition [4]”
L. 77-79: Rewrite the sentence as follows “Beg and Mirza (1984) [30] studied Oak-dominated forests in the Hindukush mountain region.”
L. 86-88: Rewrite the sentence as follows “So far, no comprehensive study has investigated the details of phytosociological attributes and environmental variables in association with those understories, aiming to understand its diversity.”
L. 89-91: Rewrite the sentence as follows “In this study, the understory species composition is considered to differ significantly among the major groups concerning species richness and diversity.”
L. 361-362: Rewrite the sentence as follows “In particular, latitude and altitude were found to vary significantly in the understory groups.”
L. 365: Delete “and revealed” and write “revealing”
L. 366-369: Rewrite the sentence as follows “An Oak species i.e. Q. dilatata was also reported as a major associated species. Furthermore, many other researchers from other parts of the world have reported that edaphic factors can significantly affect the species composition and species diversity in plant communities [70-73].”

Author Response

Reviewer 3
Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

The submitted manuscript needs minor revision. I have listed minor concerns below.

Reviewer comment: L. 42-44: Rewrite the sentence as follows “Yet, information about the plant dissemination and motherland show diversity in landscapes, topographies, and biological/ecological zones, bolstering the distinctive floristic composition [4]”