Species Diversity and Distribution of Macrophytes in Different Wetland Ecosystems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript deals with diversity of wetland plant species in Mardan Division, Pakistan. The topic is interesting, but the manuscript needs in depth improvement before it can be considered for publication in an international indexed journal. More comparison with similar studies around the world is necessary to publish in an international journal. The English certainly needs to be reviewed by a mother tongue. The presentation of the work is often poor, too simple and repetitive. The Conclusions are very poor. In the Conclusion paragraph have to highlight the relevant results of your research and how they can be useful for the protection of biodiversity, not simply write “Conservation of wetlands is very essential. Wetlands should be given suitable and effective protection from anthropogenic disturbances such as harvesting, farming, and building construction.” I suggest major revision.

Minor points:

Line 20: “atmosphere”. What do you mean? Climatic conditions?

Lines 22-23: “having all three types of plants: herb, shrub, and tree. The study area has an important quality for the sustenance growth of all types of flora”. I do not think that herbs, shrubs and trees can be defined as “the three types of plants” or “all types of flora”. It is not a technical definition. Maybe you can use Biological forms? For example, hydrophytes, nanophanerophytes, phanerophytes?

Lines 25-26: Delete “To cover the whole vegetation of wetlands in the research area, forty areas were selected for study.” Already written in line 14

Line 30: “are as follows:” instead of “are given below.”

Line 33: Do not repeat in the keywords words already included in the title, i.e. delete “Pakistan”

Lines 36-41: You gave different definitions of “wetlands”, using the word “wetlands” 7 times in 6 lines. This part should be re-written better.

Lines 37-38: “are categorized” instead of “is categorized”

Line 43: “They are filled with water seasonally or perennially.” You already wrote in line 39 “Wetlands may be permanent or temporary.” This two sentences said the same thing.

Line 50: “They reduce” instead of “Wetlands reduce”

Line 53: “of the human population” instead of “of the population”

Line 75: “rising human populations” instead of “rising populations”

Lines 87-88: “between 34°12'0"N and 72°2'24"E”. It is not clear. Explain better.

Line 92: “the human population” instead of “the population”

Line 95: “Most of the people are farmers in villages.” Move this sentence to line 93, after “the human population of the Mardan division was 2,486,904 [17].”

Line 96: “December and January are the coldest months.” Delete this sentence hier. You correctly wrote it also in lines 97-98.

Line 97: “Heat Index 69”. What does it mean?

Line 98: “°C” instead of “degrees Celsius”

Line 99: “°F” instead of “degrees Fahrenheit”

Lines 111-113: “After that, field studies and tours were started. Based on this information and studies, extensive field investigations were conducted and settled.” Delete one of the two sentences. They have the same meaning

Line 116: “all forty selected areas” instead of “all forty areas”

Lines 123-127: You repeated 2 times the same text

Line 128: “28x11.5” instead of “28 11.5”

Line 130: “herbarium of the department” instead of “herbarium department”

Line 131: Add the acronym of the herbarium

Line 134: “Herbarium of the Department” instead of “Herbarium Department”

Line 142: “number of plant species” instead of “number of plants species”

Line 144: “282 wetland plant species. These 282”: In Table 2 you listed 283 taxa

Line 145: “belong to 192 genera”: in line 152 you write 194 genera

Lines 147-148: Delete “, as the district's second and 147 third most diversified families”

Line 152: “are 135” instead of “are135”

Line 152: “total 194 genera”: in line 145 you wrote 192 genera

Lines 155-164: Delete altitudes. They are already reported in Table 1.

Line 165: “coordinates and altitude of different” instead of “Coordinates of different”

Line 202: Caption to Fig. 1 is missing

Table 2: “Acrachne racemosa” instead of “Acrachne racemose”

Table 2: After taxon 60 you did not insert the symbol “-“ for absence

Table 2: “Zannichellia palustris L.” instead of “Zannichellia palustris Linn.”

Line 206: “33 Jalbai” instead of “33Jalbai”

Line 206: “40 Lahore” instead of “40Lahore”

Line 217: “6) They provide” instead of “6. They provide”

Lines 224-228: Move the following sentences to paragraph 2.1. Study area: “The study area is crossed by several khuwars, rivers and nalas, among which the Sher Garh khwar is the principal one. The main tributaries of the Sher Garh khwar are Jalala Khwar and Jandaie khwar and some minor nallas on left and right. During the rainy season all those small rivers flows with a sufficient volume of water and during the hot season shrink to a narrow channel”

Lines 231-232: Plant names in italics

Line 232: “Rehman et al. [23]” instead of “Rehman et al. (2013)”

Line 234: “Mulei et al. [24]” instead of “Mulei et al. [23]”

Line 240: “hectares” instead of “hectors”

Lines 240-242: The meaning of this sentence is not clear. Explain it better

Line 242: “1) absence” instead of “1. absence”

Line 244: “3) Pollution” instead of “3. Pollution”

Lines 254-255: “The study area has 282 wetland plant species. These 282 vascular wetland plant species belong to 192 genera and 73 families”: Check the numbers

Lines 255-257: Delete “as the district's second and third most diversified families”

Line 261: “racemosa” instead of “racemose”

Lines 317-321:

“23. Rehman U K, Sultan M, Aziz K, Saad Ullah K, Hidayat U, Abida. 2013. Conservation of Native Aquatic Flora of District Bannu Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan. Int. Arch. App. Sci. Technol; Vol 4: 13-19.

24. Mulei, J. M. A. O. Onkware and D. F. Otieno 2016. Vegetation community structure and diversity in swamps undergoing anthropogenic impacts in Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. African Journal of Ecology and Ecosystems. February. Vol. 3 (2), pp. 175-184”

instead of

“23. Mulei, J. M. A. O. Onkware and D. F. Otieno 2016. Vegetation community structure and diversity in swamps undergoing anthropogenic impacts in Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. African Journal of Ecology and Ecosystems. February. Vol. 3 (2), pp. 175-184.

24. Rehman U K, Sultan M, Aziz K, Saad Ullah K, Hidayat U, Abida. 2013. Conservation of Native Aquatic Flora of District Bannu Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan. Int. Arch. App. Sci. Technol; Vol 4: 13-19”

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 (Corrections indicated in track version is also attached in the section of Reply to Reviewers)

Comment: The manuscript deals with diversity of wetland plant species in Mardan Division, Pakistan. The topic is interesting, but the manuscript needs in depth improvement before it can be considered for publication in an international indexed journal. More comparison with similar studies around the world is necessary to publish in an international journal. The English certainly needs to be reviewed by a mother tongue. The presentation of the work is often poor, too simple and repetitive. The Conclusions are very poor. In the Conclusion paragraph have to highlight the relevant results of your research and how they can be useful for the protection of biodiversity, not simply write “Conservation of wetlands is very essential. Wetlands should be given suitable and effective protection from anthropogenic disturbances such as harvesting, farming, and building construction.” I suggest major revision.

Response:We really appreciate your time and comments. We have significantly revised the manuscript starting from abstract till conclusion and even references. All the suggestions and raised questions were taken into consideration which significantly improved the manuscript, and all the required information has been added. We have also added the Cook’s ecological classification to this study to make it better.

 

Comment: Lines 25-26: Delete “To cover the whole vegetation of wetlands in the research area, forty areas were selected for study.” Already written in line 14

Response:  done as per suggestions

 

Comment: Line 30: “are as follows:” instead of “are given below.”

Response:  done as per suggestions

 

Comment: Line 33: Do not repeat in the keywords words already included in the title, i.e. delete “Pakistan”

Response: done as per suggestions

 

Comment: Lines 36-41: You gave different definitions of “wetlands”, using the word “wetlands” 7 times in 6 lines. This part should be re-written better.

Response:  done as per suggestions

 

Comment: Lines 37-38: “are categorized” instead of “is categorized”

Response: done as per suggestions

 

Comment:  Line 43: “They are filled with water seasonally or perennially.” You already wrote in line 39 “Wetlands may be permanent or temporary.” This two sentences said the same thing.

Response: removed

 

Comment:  Line 50: “They reduce” instead of “Wetlands reduce”

Response: done as per suggestions

 

Comment: Line 53: “of the human population” instead of “of the population”

Response: done as per suggestions

 

Comment:  Line 75: “rising human populations” instead of “rising populations”

Response: done as per suggestions

 

Comment:   Lines 87-88: “between 34°12'0"N and 72°2'24"E”. It is not clear. Explain better.

Response: Corrected as per suggestion

 

Comment:   Line 92: “the human population” instead of “the population”

Response: done as per suggestions

 

Comment:   Line 95: “Most of the people are farmers in villages.” Move this sentence to line 93, after “the human population of the Mardan division was 2,486,904 [17].”

Response:  done as per suggestions

 

Comment:   Line 96: “December and January are the coldest months.” Delete this sentence hier. You correctly wrote it also in lines 97-98.

Response: done as per suggestions

 

Comment:   Line 97: “Heat Index 69”. What does it mean?

Response: Heat Index, is what the temperature feels like to the human body when relative humidity is combined with the air temperature.

 

Comment:    Line 98: “°C” instead of “degrees Celsius”

Response: done as per suggestions

 

Comment:     Line 99: “°F” instead of “degrees Fahrenheit”

Response:  done as per suggestions

 

Comment:     Lines 111-113: “After that, field studies and tours were started. Based on this information and studies, extensive field investigations were conducted and settled.” Delete one of the two sentences. They have the same meaning

Response: (After that, field studies and tours were started)---deleted

 

Comment:      Line 116: “all forty selected areas” instead of “all forty areas”

Response:    done as per suggestions

 

Comment:      Lines 123-127: You repeated 2 times the same text

Response: Line 127 deleted

 

Comment:       Line 128: “28x11.5” instead of “28 11.5”

Response: Corrected as per suggestion

 

Comment:        Line 130: “herbarium of the department” instead of “herbarium department”

Response: done as per suggestions

 

Comment:        Line 131: Add the acronym of the herbarium

Response:  done as per suggestions

 

Comment:        Line 134: “Herbarium of the Department” instead of “Herbarium Department”

Response: done as per suggestions

 

Comment:        Line 142: “number of plant species” instead of “number of plants species”

Response: done as per suggestions

 

Comment:        Line 144: “282 wetland plant species. These 282”: In Table 2 you listed 283 taxa

Response: The plant species are 282, the “S.No. 6” was mistakenly left, but now corrected accordingly.

 

Comment:         Line 145: “belong to 192 genera”: in line 152 you write 194 genera

Response: The statement has been corrected

 

Comment:         Lines 147-148: Delete “, as the district's second and 147 third most diversified families”

Response: done as per suggestions

 

Comment:         Line 152: “are 135” instead of “are135”

Response:  done as per suggestions

 

Comment:         Line 152: “total 194 genera”: in line 145 you wrote 192 genera

Response:  The statement has been corrected

 

Comment:         Lines 155-164: Delete altitudes. They are already reported in Table 1.

Response: Deleted as per suggestion

 

Comment:         Line 165: “coordinates and altitude of different” instead of “Coordinates of different”

Response: done as per suggestions

 

Comment:         Line 202: Caption to Fig. 1 is missing

Response: The caption has been added with complete details

 

Comment:          Table 2: “Acrachne racemosa” instead of “Acrachne racemose”

Response:  done as per suggestions

 

Comment:          Table 2: After taxon 60 you did not insert the symbol “-“ for absence

Response:  The entire table was checked for the missing cells and the symbols are placed accordingly

 

Comment:          Table 2: “Zannichellia palustris L.” instead of “Zannichellia palustris Linn.”

Response:  Corrected as per suggestion

 

Comment:          Line 206: “33 Jalbai” instead of “33Jalbai”

Response: done as per suggestions

 

Comment:          Line 206: “40 Lahore” instead of “40Lahore”

Response:  Corrected as per suggestion

 

Comment:          Line 217: “6) They provide” instead of “6. They provide”

Response:  done as per suggestions

 

Comment:          Lines 224-228: Move the following sentences to paragraph 2.1. Study area: “The study area is crossed by several khuwars, rivers and nalas, among which the Sher Garh khwar is the principal one. The main tributaries of the Sher Garh khwar are Jalala Khwar and Jandaie khwar and some minor nallas on left and right. During the rainy season all those small rivers flows with a sufficient volume of water and during the hot season shrink to a narrow channel”

Response: Moved as per suggestion

 

Comment:          Lines 231-232: Plant names in italics

Response: done as per suggestions

 

Comment:          Line 232: “Rehman et al. [23]” instead of “Rehman et al. (2013)”

Response: The citation has been corrected and all the others were also cross-checked and corrected accordingly

 

Comment:          Line 234: “Mulei et al. [24]” instead of “Mulei et al. [23]”

Response: The citation has been corrected and all the others were also cross-checked and corrected accordingly

 

Comment: Line 240: “hectares” instead of “hectors”

Response: Corrected as per suggestion

 

Comment: Lines 240-242: The meaning of this sentence is not clear. Explain it better

Response: done as per suggestions

 

Comment: Line 242: “1) absence” instead of “1. absence”

Response: done as per suggestions

 

Comment: Line 244: “3) Pollution” instead of “3. Pollution”

Response: done as per suggestions

 

Comment: Lines 254-255: “The study area has 282 wetland plant species. These 282 vascular wetland plant species belong to 192 genera and 73 families”: Check the numbers

Response: Checked and corrected accordingly

 

Comment: Lines 255-257: Delete “as the district's second and third most diversified families”

Response: done as per suggestions

 

Comment:  Line 261: “racemosa” instead of “racemose”

Response: done as per suggestions

Comment:  Lines 317-321:

“23. Rehman U K, Sultan M, Aziz K, Saad Ullah K, Hidayat U, Abida. 2013. Conservation of Native Aquatic Flora of District Bannu Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan. Int. Arch. App. Sci. Technol; Vol 4: 13-19.

24. Mulei, J. M. A. O. Onkware and D. F. Otieno 2016. Vegetation community structure and diversity in swamps undergoing anthropogenic impacts in Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. African Journal of Ecology and Ecosystems. February. Vol. 3 (2), pp. 175-184”

instead of

“23. Mulei, J. M. A. O. Onkware and D. F. Otieno 2016. Vegetation community structure and diversity in swamps undergoing anthropogenic impacts in Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. African Journal of Ecology and Ecosystems. February. Vol. 3 (2), pp. 175-184.

24. Rehman U K, Sultan M, Aziz K, Saad Ullah K, Hidayat U, Abida. 2013. Conservation of Native Aquatic Flora of District Bannu Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan. Int. Arch. App. Sci. Technol; Vol 4: 13-19”

Response: Mendeley was used to format the citations and references as per journal’s style and to avoid any mistakes in their numbering. Latest references have also been added.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors investigated the distribution of wetlands plants in a vast area, of the Mardan division, Pakistan, for three years. The aim of the study was to evaluate the distribution of different plants species, herbs, shrubs and tresss, from different areas and types of wetland habitats. The manuscript actually presents an inventory of  plant species in different habitats, the plants being collected, dehydrated and preserved.

The experimental methodology seems to be insufficient, simplistic and without comparison variables and criteria. Hence the difficulty of achieving, complex models of processing and analyzing the results or elaborate discussion platforms. and without variables and criteria for comparison. Hence the difficulty of achieving, complex models of processing and analyzing the results or elaborate discussion platforms.

General comments:

The manuscript presents actually an interesting idea, to assess the impact of anthropogenic activities and climate change on different wetland ecosystems and the dynamics of their specific plant populations. Although it is far from achieving this target, the results presented involved a huge amount of work, which must be recognized.

However, a lot of problems have been identified regarding the research methodology, the way of collecting, processing, and data analysis, or the drafting of the manuscript.  

Here are some observations:

• The abstract is long, repetitive, and not properly structured. It should contain a brief overview of the researched area, the methods of experimentation, in short, the relevant results and the hypothesis/objectives of the research.
• Keywords, are wrongly chosen, do not repeat terms that already exist in the title.
• Introduction: it must present the state of knowledge in the field, with the presentation of updated results from the main flow of information existing globally. The most recent citation is in manuscript from 2014, that is, from 8 years ago...
• Material and methods: the studied areas are a little bit too detailed presented, and the methods are too simplistic (identification, pressing collection, drying and storage in the herbarium of plants). Statistical methods of data analysis are not used...
• The obtained results: they are presented in a huge table, and from the list of coordinates of different localities, the altitude is repeated in the text as well.
• The discussions are of a general nature, without focusing on analyzing and comparing the results with other complementary studies.
• Limited references and very little updated.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 (Corrections indicated in track version is also attached in the section of Reply to Reviewers)

 

Comment:  The manuscript presents actually an interesting idea, to assess the impact of anthropogenic activities and climate change on different wetland ecosystems and the dynamics of their specific plant populations. Although it is far from achieving this target, the results presented involved a huge amount of work, which must be recognized. However, a lot of problems have been identified regarding the research methodology, the way of collecting, processing, and data analysis, or the drafting of the manuscript.  

Response:We really appreciate your time and comments. We have significantly revised the manuscript starting from abstract till conclusion and even references. All the suggestions and raised questions were taken into consideration which significantly improved the manuscript, and all the required information has been added. We have also added the Cook’s ecological classification to this study to make it better.

 

Comment:  The abstract is long, repetitive, and not properly structured. It should contain a brief overview of the researched area, the methods of experimentation, in short, the relevant results and the hypothesis/objectives of the research.

Response: Abstract modified as suggested

 

Comment:  Keywords, are wrongly chosen, do not repeat terms that already exist in the title.

Response: Changed as suggested

 

Comment:  Introduction: it must present the state of knowledge in the field, with the presentation of updated results from the main flow of information existing globally. The most recent citation is in manuscript from 2014, that is, from 8 years ago...

Response: Modified as suggested

 

Comment:  Material and methods: the studied areas are a little bit too detailed presented, and the methods are too simplistic (identification, pressing collection, drying and storage in the herbarium of plants). Statistical methods of data analysis are not used...

Response: Modified as suggested

 

Comment:  The obtained results: they are presented in a huge table, and from the list of coordinates of different localities, the altitude is repeated in the text as well.

Response: Repetition removed in the text

 

Comment:  The discussions are of a general nature, without focusing on analyzing and comparing the results with other complementary studies.

Response:  Modified as per suggestion

 

Comment:  Limited references and very little updated.

Response: Mendeley was used to format the citations and references as per journal’s style and to avoid any mistakes in their numbering. Latest references have also been added.

Thank you for the range of very helpful comments on our manuscript. We are indebted to you for overall support, interest and guidance over the entire course of this MS.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article entitled “Diversity and distribution of wetland plant species in different localities of Mardan Division, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan”. The article focusses on the different wetland ecosystem of District Mardan. The author did work in the year 2015-2019, but the 2020, and 2021 status of these wetland ecosystem is missing? If the author fulfills this gap will be helpful that what is the current status of these wetlands. The overall article is written and presented well. 
Abstract 
The overall abstract is good but not well organized and need to be organized following the standard protocol for abstract, which consist of background, aim, methodology, results, and discussion and conclusion. Which should be link in a single paragraph. Some of the important results should be included. 
Introduction
The introduction part is well written but still some points must be written in detail. 
The introduction is always from a broad to narrow, so in the first para the authors have to talk about the world, then in second about the region and Pakistan. In the last have to talk about the specific area wetland please see some suggested article. These articles have to be cite and used as reference in your introduction i.e., 
https://doi.org/10.51694/AdvWeedSci/2021;39:000013
DOI: 10.1002/jemt.22999 
Methodology 
This section is well written and enough for the present study. 
Results
Results is well written and the method used in this study is acceptable. 
Discussion
This section of the paper is really week need to be improved and incorporated well. 
Authors have to read more published article to make their discussion authentic and concise, currently its really short and not looking good. Read more article about wetland ecosystem. 
The information provided in the discussion is already discussed in the introduction section. 
The author should start the discussion from the aim and unique results of this study. Additionally, provide justification by comparing with other studies, why this study was important.
Conclusion
This section needs significant improvement, the paper must be concluded in all terms. Presenting only results in the conclusion is not a good way.  Both significant and drawback should be present in this section of the article. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 (Corrections indicated in track version is also attached in the section of Reply to Reviewers)

 

Comment:  Abstract 
The overall abstract is good but not well organized and need to be organized following the standard protocol for abstract, which consist of background, aim, methodology, results, and discussion and conclusion. Which should be link in a single paragraph. Some of the important results should be included. 

Response:We really appreciate your time and comments. We have significantly revised the manuscript starting from abstract till conclusion and even references. All the suggestions and raised questions were taken into consideration which significantly improved the manuscript, and all the required information has been added. We have also added the Cook’s ecological classification to this study to make it better.

 

Comment:  Introduction
The introduction part is well written but still some points must be written in detail. 
The introduction is always from a broad to narrow, so in the first para the authors have to talk about the world, then in second about the region and Pakistan. In the last have to talk about the specific area wetland please see some suggested article. These articles have to be cite and used as reference in your introduction i.e., 
https://doi.org/10.51694/AdvWeedSci/2021;39:000013
DOI: 10.1002/jemt.22999 
Response:We have significantly revised the manuscript. We have cited those two valuable articles in our study. We have worked on the introduction section and added some further information. Mendeley was used to format the citations and references as per journal’s style and to avoid any mistakes in their numbering. Latest references have also been added.

 

Comment:  Methodology 
This section is well written and enough for the present study. 
Response:This section has also been modified and the Cook’s ecological classification system section has also been included in it.

 

Comment:  Results
Results is well written and the method used in this study is acceptable. 
Discussion
This section of the paper is really week need to be improved and incorporated well. 
Authors have to read more published article to make their discussion authentic and concise, currently its really short and not looking good. Read more article about wetland ecosystem. 
The information provided in the discussion is already discussed in the introduction section. 
The author should start the discussion from the aim and unique results of this study. Additionally, provide justification by comparing with other studies, why this study was important.
Response:Both results and discussion sections have been significantly revised. More results have been included and the discussion section has also been modified accordingly.

 

Conclusion
This section needs significant improvement, the paper must be concluded in all terms. Presenting only results in the conclusion is not a good way.  Both significant and drawback should be present in this section of the article. 

Response:The conclusion section has been significantly modified. Literature in the current research area was checked for it to make it better.

 

Thank you for the range of very helpful comments on our manuscript. We are indebted to the reviewers for their overall support, interest and guidance over the entire course of this MS.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors improved the manuscript according to the requests. Some sentences could be written and explained better. I suggest still a revision of the English. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Comment: The authors improved the manuscript according to the requests. Some sentences could be written and explained better. I suggest still a revision of the English.

 

Response: We are thankful and indebted to the reviewer for their overall support, interest, and guidance over the entire course of this MS. We have gone through the manuscript and corrected the typos, grammatical errors, and complex sentences accordingly. Corrections indicated in track version is also attached in the section of Reply to Reviewers

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been substantially improved, but it still has a few things that need to be improved (e.g. statistic analysis of the data) and some details of expression in English. I ask for a careful look at these issues.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 

Comment:  The manuscript has been substantially improved, but it still has a few things that need to be improved (e.g. statistic analysis of the data) and some details of expression in English. I ask for a careful look at these issues.

 

Response: We are thankful and indebted to the reviewer for their overall support, interest, and guidance over the entire course of this MS. We have gone through the entire text and corrected the typos, grammatical errors, and complex sentences accordingly. As per suggestion, we have also added the "data analysis" part to the Material and Methods section. Corrections indicated in track version is also attached in the section of Reply to Reviewers

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf