Tree Species Composition and Diversity in a Secondary Forest along the Sierra Madre Mountain Range in Central Luzon, Philippines: Implications for the Conservation of Endemic, Native, and Threatened Plants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate reading the manuscript "Tree Species Composition and Diversity in a Secondary Forest along the Sierra Madre Mountain Range in Central Luzon, Philippines: Implications for the Conservation of Endemic, Native, and Threatened Plants" to the Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens. 

I found the manuscript worth being published as a technical note like it is. For a scientific paper, I would expect more details in the methodology to allow reproducible research and more elements in the discussion section. Some spatial analysis techniques shall be evaluated besides a pure description of the species' occurrence in a given area. 

When we saw the results section, for example, Fig. 6, I saw elevation, richness, abundance, Shannon, and Evenness. However, not all metrics are adequately described and require some attention.

There is a need to split the results from the discussion. The discussion shall consider other components that reflect biodiversity and conservation insights and concepts for long-term monitoring and increasing survey plots in other areas with differences from topographic gradients, exposure, elevations, etc.

Some other comments:

L81: The description of the study area must be enhanced accordingly and include detailed climate data for the entire year. Consider a history record to have a good perception of the study area;

Figure 1: add letters a, b, and c and detail their meaning. Increase the font size and only keep relevant information. Using "this site" is not usual for a scientific paper;

L88: how do you obtain these elevations? Please add an SRTM map (shadow relief map, for example) to Fig.1;

L100: 9000m2 or 900m2 (30 by 30meters);

L122: what locus map means?

L123: how?

L128: not all metrics were described correctly; please revise;

L137: equations sound better, I guess;

L139, L147: in which environment do you perform such analysis? What is the motivation behind it?

Please add Section 2.3.4 and explain how you will present results and the strategy of data analysis;

L157: split results from discussion;

L168, L175: did you explore per hectare?

L175: When do you mention the basal area in methods? Equation 5 is wrong, and there shall be a note for the number 2 over species and also a sum symbol;

L183: increase font size and remove zero after point or comma (no need);

L241: add the title for Y-axis;

L281: what image is in the background?

L282: not all elements were adequately explored in the discussion section;

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I am pleased to review the paper titled “Tree Species Composition and Diversity in a Secondary Forest along the Sierra Madre Mountain Range in Central Luzon, Philippines: Implications for the Conservation of Endemic, Native, and Threatened Plants."  The manuscript is generally well-written. I believe that the findings from this paper have some value for forest and natural resources managers  and stakeholders, and the topic is interesting and well-suited for potential readers of the JZBG. Even though they may not be major issues, the authors would need to consider them carefully in the revision of the manuscript. I would recommend a “minor revision” for this manuscript (see my comments section by section)

Title

- try to concise it (e.g. Forest Composition and Diversity in Sierra Madre, Central Luzon, Philippines: Implications for Plant Conservation)

Abstract

Good, no comment.

Introduction

- L 38-40: Add more citations here, you can use the following papers for instance (I am not one of the authors of these papers):

*** https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6105-1 (about the impact of biodiversity in soil stabilization)

*** https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-023-01535-2 (about the importance of plant biodiversity in road edge)

*** https://doi.org/10.1080/11956860.2021.2010333 (about the importance of biodiversity in forest management)

- Add research hypothesis and question to the last paragraph of Introduction section.

Materials and methods:

- L 88: add space between "m" and "asl".

- L 107: Is there a specific reason to consider a DBH of 10 cm, given that a global standard typically considers DBH larger than 7.5 cm as a tree?

- L 125: Add the version of ARC GIS in paranthesis

Results and discussion

- Figure 3: Remove the numbers above the each bar.

- This section of paper is so clear and interesting, at least for me. So, I would propose to add a section to end of this part as research limitations.

Conclusion:

Clear, and good job!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have implemented the majority of the suggested enhancements; however, they have focused primarily on basic plant species identification as a secondary and deferred approach, as indicated in the stated limitations, with the intention of addressing this in future studies. Consequently, I propose recommending the publication of this research as a technical note.

Research articles typically provide a comprehensive study account with a well-defined research question, novel, compelling results, and deep discussion based on advanced statistical analysis. Technical notes are more concise and may serve to elucidate new methodologies or showcase outcomes derived from innovative techniques or equipment. I believe for authors, it remains a publication record, but it would be healthy for maintaining the quality and reputation of the Journal.