Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The authors added in the revised methods section "According to the monitoring and mapping of introduced populations, a comprehensive 227 assessment of invasive activity was carried out and conclusions were made based on 228 meta-analysis....."  HOWEVER, there appears to be NO results of this assessment of invasive potential.  My original question remains unanswered - what is the invasive potential of the species recommended? 

Author Response

The most aggressive, of course, is pseudo-acacia. It massively settles in the free territories of the arboretum without entering into competition with other species. Outside the territory, it is mainly found in artificial plantations! It is still premature to talk about massive invasive populations in our dry steppe conditions! The New Mexican has only sporadic invasive populations. The color forms of the new Mexican and sticky, although they are actively renewed, but mainly within the boundaries of collection plantations, outside of them you can find only single specimens that do not form invasive populations!!!

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Should change Fig. 1

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Good afternoon Thanks for understanding!
For 1 figure: I removed it from the text, as well as general cadastral numbers, left only directly for the objects in table 1.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

I now see that the authors have included results of their field analysis of the invasive nature of the various Rubinia species examined.  However, to introduce this issue in the methods section, the authors should include this reference 

Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) beloved and despised: A story of an invasive tree in Central Europe

 

Author links open overlay panelMichaela Vítková a, Jana Müllerová a, Jiří Sádlo a, Jan Pergl a, Petr Pyšek a b

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.10.057

Author Response

Link added, thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The title „Increasing the biodiversity of the dendroflora of sparsely wooded regions by adapted representatives of the genus Robinia L.” is representative and appropriate for the content of this article.

 

The abstract is very good structured and the purpose of the work is clearly identified, which is very important in my opinion. 

The introduction, methods and results are complex and well organized, fact that shows the correct and detailed documentation of the authors.

There are small recommendations, such as: - line 276 Robinia pseudoacacia is written with Italics,

-           I would suggest that the figures to be arranged centrally,

I also recommend a short linguistic check.

The conclusions are thoroughly supported by the results presented in the paper.  Overall it is a good work.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for an objective assessment of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

this paper on a widely introduced species and varieties of trees needs to be made more relevant to an international readership.  Its focus is too narrow.  Where else in southern Eurasia would these species be suitable?  

The attached file has numerous additional comments and suggested edits.  As noted in the attached, the weed potential (invasiveness) of Robinia species must be assessed.  Far too many introduced plants have become weeds outside of their native distribution. 

The Results need to focus just on results and the Discussion section on the implications or significance of the results. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for an objective assessment of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

All of comment I reported in PDF file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for an objective assessment of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc