The Floristic Composition and Phytoecological Characterization of Plant Communities in the M’Goun Geopark, High Atlas, Morocco

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors propose a manuscript titled “Floristic Composition and Phytoecological Characterization of Plant Communities in the M'Goun Geopark, Hight Atlas of Morocco”. The authors consider a very interesting topic about on on vegetation of specific territory in Morocco and that there are some places not alterated by human activities. The authors have studied the vegetation with 565 plant species and identified six blocks with the following distinct plant communities: Quercus ilex forests, Juniperus phoenicea lands, Q. ilex and J. phoenicea, Pinus halepensis forests, xerophytic species alongside the a for mentioned species, Juniperus thurifera and others... Also, inside this vegetation grow some rare and endemic, rare threatened species.

The manuscript is original in the data compared to other similar articles and is able to be published on international audience. However, I believe it is necessary to implement the manuscript with many crucial and formal concepts that the authors will have no problem to accepting as they are designed to improve the work.

 

Abstract

·           It seems more like an introduction. Please summarize

1. Introduction

Please see my observations in bold

·           Lines 49-50. In addition, Biodiversity is a vital sector for its socioeconomic development (Menioui, 2018), also in protected areas [Pisani et al. 2021].

·           Lines 52-53. The Mediterranean region is one of the most degraded regions in the world, having undergone significant changes in its primary natural ecosystems [please choose a reference].

·           Line 63. This country inhabits large scale ecosystems diversity. Please check whole introduction because the term Morocco is too used.

·           Line 72. Space hotspot(Mohamed Fennane….

·           Lines 104-105. Is unclear the period “Therefore, the importance of elaborate not only the diversity of a site but also the ecology and photoecology”. Who means photoecology? You refer to vegetation images? An about ecology you refer to phenology, clime or other topics?

·           Is necessary to introduce the readers to the vegetation approach used…as phytosociology … remember Braun Blanquet 1932?. In the mediterranean area the botanist used this method and you? Please introduce in this section!!!

References to be added:

·           Pisani D., Pazienza P., Perrino E.V., Caporale D., De Lucia C., 2021. The Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services of Biodiversity Components in Protected Areas: A Review for a Framework of Analysis for the Gargano National Park. Sustainability, 13, 11726. DOI: 10.3390/su132111726.

 

2. Methodology

·      Figure 1. Is unclear the number of longitude and latitude, please increase the font size of numbers. Also specify in methods the geographic system used (WGS84?);

·      Phytoecology. Personally, I have deep doubts about the Emberger method used because I think is valid to evaluate conditions in wide territories and often does not give a reliable response especially for evaluations for conservation actions etc...

·      Lines 161-165. About biological form I noticed that there are not chamaephytes, geophytes and nanophanerophytes on 565 taxa, why? and also, I don't know chamaerophytes….

 

3. Results 

Few observations. The figures and tables are clears.

·    For botanical point of view I suggest to report the scientific name in complete way, so with authors. Only the first time in the tect starting from Quercus ilex L. (line 202)

·    Line 214. Alyssum …;

·    Line 219. There is a specific subspecies of E. niceensis in Morocco, please check and complete;

·    Lines 221-223. Please report in italics the plant scientific names, and 

·    Line 219. Alyssum …. check Erinacea Anthyllis

·    Table 1. Check capitalization in the first letter of the genus ... the lack of comma between species …Nasturia….

·    Figure 3. R? the meaning?

·    Figures 5,6 7 and 10. See my comment about figure 1

·    Figure 8. The value from 0 to 180 what do they mean? add on the axis what it is (as % or other…)

·    Figure 8 and 9 are reported after figure 10!!! Pay attention

4. Discussion

·      Please pay attention to report the scientific name in italics

·      In general the authors report vegetation types in summary way, but never mention of the syntaxa, notoriously used in all vegetation studies. Why? Please give a response.

Author Response

Comments 1: Abstract ·           It seems more like an introduction. Please summarize

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have summarized the abstract.

Comments 2: Introduction section

Response 2: the requested reference is now reported, the mediterranean vegetation belts are reported. The unclear expressions are elucidated. The vegetation sampling is discussed.

comment 3:  Methodology section

Response 3: the methodology is enhanced and the sampling method is well presented, while the figures are corrected and the coordinate system is reported.

Comment 4: results and discussion:

Response 4: the species are rewrite in italics and author names abbreviations are reported in the first species stations. Please note that the syntaxa are reported in table 1 List of total sampled species is provided as supplementary

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled „Floristic Composition and Phytoecological Characterization of Plant Communities in the M'Goun Geopark, Hight Atlas of Morocco” aims to identify the floristic richness and species composition as well as rarity rate and endemism of the species present within the Geopark M'Goun in relation to the ecological conditions of the area. Mountain ranges in general and those in the mediterranean region in particular, are global hotspots of biodiversity and seriously threatened by anthropogenic activities. So, even basic studies on biodiversity and underlying factors are highly welcome as they provide the background knowledge for conservation measures. In addition, studies on the change in flora and vegetation along elevational gradients are always interesting. The study at hand is kind of “old school” but the topic nevertheless suitable for the MDPI Journal Ecologies. However, I see a couple of points which should be fixed by the authors prior to a possible consideration of this manuscript for publication in MDPI Ecologies. My comments are structured in formal issues, issues with regard to content, as well as some minor suggestions such as typos or bad wording.

 

Formal issues:

·         The citation of references in the manuscript (author and year) does not follow MDPI standards, which is by number is in square brackets (e.g. [4, 6]). Please correct

·         use italics for species, genus and family names, carefully check throughout the manuscript. Please also consult the author guidelines of MDPI Ecologies for correct citation of species names (e.g. including the name of the person, who first describe the species on the first occurrence of a species name within the text)

·         check the numbering of the figures, there are some numbers missing and some are double

·         reference 53 in the reference list (L662-665) is not a reference and have to be removed from the list of references

 

Issues with regard to content:

·         The author commonly use the term altidude/altidudinal throughout the manuscript. According to McVicar and Körner (McVicar & Körner 2012: On the use of elevation, altitude, and height in the ecological and climatological literature, Oecologia 171(2), DOI:10.1007/s00442-012-2416-7) elevation is the right term. Please replace altitude/altitudinal with elevation/elevational throughout the ms.

·         For the designation of the different elevational belts refer also to Ozenda as well as Rivas-Martinez and indicate also roughly the minimum and maximum elevation of the respective elevational belt. What is the difference between Oro-Mediterranean and mountain Mediterranean? “Oro” and “mountain” basically mean the same. Please clarify.

·         The aim of the study must be better described than the two and a half lines at the end of the introduction (L106-108)

·         The description of the study area is poor and needs to be revised. For climate, the annual course of temperature and precipitation is necessary to understand the peculiarities of the mediterranean climate and the adaptations of the vegetation. Portray the climate best with climate charts from lower, middle and upper parts of the study area. Also, inform the reader about anthropogenic land use in the different elevational belts and how this influences the vegetation (disturbance, positive and negative effects on biodiversity). In addition, figure 1 is poor; use an elevation model, either with contour lines or showing elevation in different colors (figure 10 could be used) and include the location of the transects and major landmarks of the area (summits, cities, etc.)

·         The methods section needs improvement. The sampling procedure and design must be better described. How do the transect look like? Are the transects line transects or belt transects? In the latter case, how many plots and/or square meters are sampled in total? Is sampling continuous or using the line intercept method? For CA analyses, better describe the method. Are there any pre-procedures employed (standardization, normalization any transformation of the raw data) prior to the analyses. Also, better describe the method of preparing the climate maps employing worldclim-data (e.g. interpolation, griging,...)

·         In section 2.2.2 Raunkiaer lifeforms are introduced, but later on no results about life-form composition is presented. That is sad, as change of life-form along elevational gradients are a very characteristic feature of mountain ecosystems. Please show results on lifeform composition of the samples in relation to the vegetation belts.

·         please show also the diversity patterns of the different elevational zone (species richness, eveness, endemism etc.). Along elevational gradients often the ecotones between two vegetation belts are particularly diverse and species rich. Is this pattern also present in the High Atlas?

·         Present the complete species list including the occurrences of the species as supplementary material

·         Figures 5, 6, and 7 should include some major landmarks (Summits, towns,...) and should be moved to the section “study area”, as these are no own results but based on worldclim-data.

·         Table 3 should be sorted by elevation, bottom – up

·         Table 4: check the bioclimatic stages, sometimes for example "cold" is colder as "very cold", which is kind of strange.

·         The discussion section (4. Discussion) is basically repeating the results, but is not discussing the results. Please discuss the underlying factors for diversity patterns observed (refer for example to publications of Körner or Bathlott concerning phytodiverity pattens in mountain areas) and discuss also what the patterns observed mean for conservation efforts. The relevant human activities which should be introduced in the study area section (see comment above), can be picked up once again in the discussion section together with recommendations for improved land use for biodiversity conservation. The “severe consequences” highlighted in L519 are another important point for the discussion. What would be the severe consequences and what options do exist, to avoid these consequences. Management and conservation policies should be portrayed and discussed in the discussion section.

 

Minor points

·         L61: “...is a is…”: bad wording

·         L68: “tow”: must it read two???

·         L105: “photoecology”: must it read phytoeceology???

·         L142-143: translate in English!

·         L162: chamaephytes instead of chamerophytes

·         L168 reference incomplete

·         L183: section 3. Results starts with 3.2 Plant richness and floristic analysis; must start with 3.1

·         L228: AFC plot: please explain, also in the methods section

·         L230: genus names inTable 1 have to start with upper case letter! Please check and correct where necessary (e.g. asperula, schismus, alyssum). Also, in Table 1 it must read Artemisia instead of Arthemisia and Populus nigra instead of Populus negra

·         L245: length: unclear

·         L267: table 2: translate head of columns in English and explain in the figure caption “Q2”

·         L317-318: Figure 8 (the second one) “vegetation profile” in A there are three belts labelled Mediterranean mountain: what's the difference

·         L317-318: Figure 8 (the second one) vegetation profile in B: semi-arid instead of semi-aride

·         L343: Figure 9 (vegetation levels): include in the figure caption that the two Profiles of figure 8 are shown.

·         L347: “The study is encompassing a highly importance species richness“: bad wording

·         L397: Phytoecology instead of phytoecology

 

·         L508: Figure 9. arrange photographs in a better way

·       

Author Response

Comments 1: Formal issues:

Response 1: 1) MDPI citations standards are now reported. 2) species, genus and family names are rewritten in italics 3) figures numbering is corrected and landmark are provided.

Comments 2: Issues with regard to content:

Response 2: 1) the word ‘altitude’ is replaced all over the manuscript by ‘elevation’ 2) the requested references are reported and the difference between Oro-Mediterranean and mountain Mediterranean are elucidated (line 60-66) 3) the aim of the study is now well constructed 4) the description of the study area is modifier as requested a) the climate is described (with three climate charts) b) study area map clarified c) the land use is provided d) the figure 5, 6 and 7 about temperatures, precipitations and bioclimate are now reportex in study area section 5) Raunkiaer life forms are reported in the results section (figure XX) 6) The discussion section (4. Discussion) is reconstructed in a try to avoid repeating the results

Comment 3: Minor points

All minor points are corrected as requested by Reviewer a List of total sampled species is provided as supplementary

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

following all my suggestions this last version of the manuscript is able to be published. 

Congratulation,

reviewer

Author Response

Thank you 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors re-submitted a revised version of their manuscript entitled „Floristic Composition and Phytoecological Characterization of Plant Communities in the M'Goun Geopark, Hight Atlas of Morocco” which aims to identify the floristic richness and species composition as well as rarity rate and endemism of the species present within the Geopark M'Goun in relation to the ecological conditions of the area. As highlighted in my first review, the study is kind of “old school” but nevertheless suitable for the MDPI Journal Ecologies. In the revised version of the manuscript the authors addressed most of the concerns raised in my earlier review, however, a couple of important points were disregarded, which I believe will greatly enhance the overall quality of the manuscript if seriously considered. So, I ask the authors once again to address the remaining suggestions in a moderate revision, in particular points 1 and 2:

1. The sampling procedure and design must be better described. How do the transect look like? Are the transects line transects or belt transects? In the latter case, how many plots and/or square meters are sampled in total? Is sampling continuous or using the line intercept method? For CA analyses, better describe the method. Are there any pre-procedures employed (standardization, normalization any transformation of the raw data) prior to the analyses. Also, better describe the method of preparing the climate maps employing worldclim-data (e.g. interpolation, griging,...)
2. please show also the diversity patterns of the different elevational zone (species richness, evenness, endemism etc.). Along elevational gradients often the ecotones between two vegetation belts are particularly diverse and species rich. Is this pattern also present in the High Atlas?
3. L508: Figure 9. arrange photographs in a better way
4. reference 53 in the reference list (L662-665) is not a reference and have to be removed from the list of references

 

 

Author Response

1°)

The sampling method is now elucidated, (Line 194-201).

 The Worlclim data used is also clarified (line 240)  

The CA is build based on the sampling raw data (of presence/ absence data, which also reported)

2)

The richness at different vegetation levels is now reported in table 4

3)

Other comments are corrected

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

So, we are almost done! Thanks, authors, for your efforts to improve the manuscript! Still, the reader does not get any information about the size/width of the belt transect and how many square meters (belt transects) or meters (line transects) were sampled in total for this study. And did sampling happen continuously along the transects or at fixed intervals (line intercept). Please add this information, as it is relevant to interpret the data. Also explain why some transect are shorter than others, i.e. why isn't a uniform sampling design employed.

Two more typos:

Figure 11: percentage instead of pourcentage

Table 5: Limestones instead of Limstones 

Author Response

• So, we are almost done! Thanks, authors, for your efforts to improve the manuscript! Still, the reader does not get any information about the size/width of the belt transect and how many square meters (belt transects) or meters (line transects) were sampled in total for this study. And did sampling happen continuously along the transects or at fixed intervals (line intercept). Please add this information, as it is relevant to interpret the data. Also explain why some transect are shorter than others, i.e. why isn't a uniform sampling design employed.

Response

Generally, the line transects are utilized during the sampling process, with use of the total 30.900 m as a total Length in the area sampled.

PLEASE note that the reason of the use of different lengths of transect is due to the irregularities in the High Atlas topography, 

2)Two more typos:

Figure 11: percentage instead of pourcentage

Table 5: Limestones instead of Limstones 

Response :

The two typos are corrected