Ecogeography and Climate Change in Forage Grasses from Arid and Semi-Arid Regions of Mexico
, Edith Ramírez-Segura 2, Luis Ángel Barrera-Guzmán 3 and Abieser Vázquez-González 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Abstract. Finally, 2 hotspots and 4 coldspots were identified among the analyzed species. The exact meaning of 2 hotspots and 4 coldspots needs to be clarified.
2. Introduction. 69. According to Semarnat [12], 95% of these ecosystems…What are ecosystems? No specific ecosystems are mentioned earlier in the introduction.
3. 88-90. there is no ecogeographic study that shows the climatic characteristics of native grass species in arid and semi-arid areas of Mexico. Not studied. Is that right? Such typical and large areas, with no climate characteristics studied, are incredible.
4. Figure 1. It would be nice to have a map of all the arid and semi-arid areas in Mexico. So you can compare it with the grass map.
5. Results. 221-223. Maximum values: 859, 848 and 800 mm, what does that mean? Water requirement? Need to be clear.
6. Conclusions. It is recommended to summarize the findings of the article more than a general description and summary. For example, which areas and species are more important for future conservation and regions are more vulnerable, need more attention. For example, the role of hot spots. Please revise the content of paragraphs 1 and 2 in conclusion.
7. Conclusions. 448-449. In the world, there are a lot of relevant studies on grassland, such as: Inner Mongolia grassland, China.
8. 493-494. Please limit the species and confine it in Mexico.
Comments on the Quality of English Language486. The sentence is wrong. The sentence is incomplete.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOver-all this manuscript is well written and presents unique and useful information. Some rather minor points need further consideration. Following are some comments, questions, and details requiring attention.
On line 63, the list for "11 genera stand out:" has Festuca listed two times. Should another genus be listed or do "10 genera stand out"?
On line 66, is Festuca one of the "first three genera" included as representing a "high percentage of endemic species"?
On Lines 73-76 indicate that "changes expected" have already affected these species. Some re-wording is needed.
Table 1: the title states "native, introduced, and naturalized forages" which should be identified for the 15 species in a column within the table. Also, a column for range of natural occurrence would be useful considering potential effects on adaptation to environmental change and the variation in current range of the species from only this portion of Mexico and immediately adjacent US states for some and through much of North and South America for Bouteloua curtipendula. For forage value in this table, would "moderate" be a more standard term than "regular"? For Bothriochloa barbinodis, perhaps "low acceptability to livestock" rather than "little desired by livestock". For Setaria macrostachya, the meaning of "Species of livestock importance considered" is not clear. On the last line of the table, "low" or "limited" forage value rather than "Bad forage value".
On line 212, Bouteloua curtipendula also had a high Bio1 value.
Line 213, Muhlenbergia rigida also has a minimum value of 11.7.
On line 218, Muhlenbergia phleoides, Bouteloua gracilis, and Bouteloua repens also have Bio12 minimum values less than 200 mm.
On line 226, why is the maximum altitude of D. californica specified, since it is not the highest altitude listed?
On line 227, 9 genera are noted for Figure 2, but only 8 genera are listed in the figure.
On line 233, "optimal for" rather than "preferred by"
On lines 233-236, this sentence appears to be an overstatement.
On line 237, "adaptability" rather than "preferences"
On line 238, "potential response" rather than "adaptation"
Figure 2 caption should indicate "8 genera of forage grasses" rather than "15 forage grasses"
On line 261, "is" not "are"
On line 270, the phrase following "and" is incomplete
On line 315-322, the values for altitude for these two clusters in the text do not seem to agree with Figure 5.
On line 420, "contributed to" rather than "helped"
On line 421, "providing" rather than "causing"
On line 431, "analyses" rather than "analyzes"?
On line 442, delete "it is" at the end of the line
On line 455-457, this sentence needs some attention including moving the genus and species for buffel grass from line 475
On line 460, "side-oats grama" rather than "side-oats grass"?
On lines 474-477, the sentence is not complete
On line 486, insert "of" or "for" before "these resources"
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. All suggestions substantially enriched our research. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted file.
On line 63, the list for "11 genera stand out:" has Festuca listed two times. Should another genus be listed or do "10 genera stand out"?
It´s only 10 genera.
On line 66, is Festuca one of the "first three genera" included as representing a "high percentage of endemic species"?
The three genera correspond to Muhlenbergia, Bouteloua, Festuca,
On Lines 73-76 indicate that "changes expected" have already affected these species. Some re-wording is needed.
We correct the text as follows: On the other hand, the expected impacts due to climate change (extreme climate events, habitat loss, prolongued droughts, among others) have also affected the development, adaptation and diversity of many of these species, so identifying and addressing this problem is essential to understand the diversity and distribution of native grass populations.
Table 1: the title states "native, introduced, and naturalized forages" which should be identified for the 15 species in a column within the table. Also, a column for range of natural occurrence would be useful considering potential effects on adaptation to environmental change and the variation in current range of the species from only this portion of Mexico and immediately adjacent US states for some and through much of North and South America for Bouteloua curtipendula. For forage value in this table, would "moderate" be a more standard term than "regular"? For Bothriochloa barbinodis, perhaps "low acceptability to livestock" rather than "little desired by livestock". For Setaria macrostachya, the meaning of "Species of livestock importance considered" is not clear. On the last line of the table, "low" or "limited" forage value rather than "Bad forage value".
The title of the table has an error; the species listed correspond to native Mexican species. Regarding the suggestions in the terms used, all were accepted and replaced in the text.
On line 212, Bouteloua curtipendula also had a high Bio1 value.
The observation is correct, the data was verified and all species with Bio1> 25°C were mentioned: Among the species, S. macrostachya, B. curtipendula, B. repens and M. emersleyi are the species that reported the highest Bio1 value (>25°C), while B. gracilis and B. repens presented 11.7 and 11.8 °C, as the minimum value, respectively.
Line 213, Muhlenbergia rigida also has a minimum value of 11.7.
The observation is correct, the data was verified and all species with Bio1< 12°C: … while B. gracilis and B. repens and M. rigida presented 11.7, and 11.8 and 11.7 °C, as the minimum value, respectively.
On line 218, Muhlenbergia phleoides, Bouteloua gracilis, and Bouteloua repens also have Bio12 minimum values less than 200 mm.
The observation is correct, the data was verified and all species with Bio12 < 200 mm: Regarding the species that presented the minimum Bio12 values, B. curtipendula, B. gracilis, B. repens, D. californica and M. phleoides were found, with values less than 200 mm of annual precipitation.
On line 226, why is the maximum altitude of D. californica specified, since it is not the highest altitude listed?
We made a mistake with the species listed. The correct information is as follows: Finally, regarding altitude, it was identified that the analyzed species are found in average value between 1411 to 2133 m. When considering extreme altitude values, B. repens was the species that was located in the sites with the lowest altitude (7 m), while M. phleoides was located at a maximum altitude of 2999 m.
On line 227, 9 genera are noted for Figure 2, but only 8 genera are listed in the figure.
We consider the genera of the 15 listed species and they correspond to only 8 genera: Aristida (1), Bothriochloa (1), Bouteloua (6), Digitaria (1), Disakisperma (1), Eragrostis (1), Muhlenbergia (3) and Setaria (1).
On line 233, "optimal for" rather than "preferred by"
Correction made in the text.
On lines 233-236, this sentence appears to be an overstatement.
We modify the wording so that it is consistent with the results obtained: Among the main findings, it was identified that the climatic requirements of the species are broad, however, it is observed that the species studied, although they belong to different genera, share common adaptation and tolerance characteristics, which is reflected in the abundance and distribution of species, being possible to find more than one species in a site.
On line 237, "adaptability" rather than "preferences"
Corrected in the text.
On line 238, "potential response" rather than "adaptation"
Corrected in the text.
Figure 2 caption should indicate "8 genera of forage grasses" rather than "15 forage grasses"
Corrected in the text.
On line 261, "is" not "are"
Corrected in the text.
On line 270, the phrase following "and" is incomplete
We complete the sentence as follows: This information is a small sample of the genetic diversity contained in these species and the possibility of finding genes with tolerance or resistance to adverse factors for use in genetic breeding programs with the aim of developing varieties adapted to specific climatic conditions.
On line 315-322, the values for altitude for these two clusters in the text do not seem to agree with Figure 5.
We had an error in the information of both cluster, we repeat a species (A. divaricate)
Cluster 1 (Bouteloua gracilis, Bouteloua dactyloides, Muhlenbergia emersleyi, Muhlenbergia phleoides, Aristida divaricata). The average annual mean temperature of the group is 16.3 °C. Regarding the annual precipitation, the range is 457 to 474 mm per year, and average annual evapotranspiration of 398 mm. Regarding altitude, the species in this group develop from 1980 m to 2080 m, with an average value of 2030 m.
Cluster 2 (Muhlenbergia rigida, Bouteloua scorpioides). The climatic requirements of this group are slightly higher (Bio12, ALT and ETP) than those reported by the species in group 1. Regarding the average annual temperature, the species in this group present an average annual value of 16.4°C, annual precipitation of 457 mm, altitude of 2119 m and annual evapotranspiration of 399 mm.
On line 420, "contributed to" rather than "helped"
Corrected in the text.
On line 421, "providing" rather than "causing"
Corrected in the text.
On line 431, "analyses" rather than "analyzes"?
Corrected in the text.
On line 442, delete "it is" at the end of the line
Corrected in the text.
On line 455-457, this sentence needs some attention including moving the genus and species for buffel grass from line 475
We correct the sentence to make it more clear: Among the species of greatest interest, B. curtipendula and B. gracilis (native to Mexico), Eragrostis superba and Pennisetum ciliare (introduced species) stand out due to the potential for dry matter and seed production, being species easy to propagate and establish, in addition to tolerating a wide diversity of climatic conditions such as drought and high temperatures, as well as being able to establish itself in highly eroded soils.
On line 460, "side-oats grama" rather than "side-oats grass"?
Corrected in the text.
On lines 474-477, the sentence is not complete
In relation to the study and conservation of genetic resources, various researchers have collected and evaluated more than 1,200 ecotypes of native and introduced grasses [86], generating so far only eight varieties of banderita grass (B. curtipendula), eight varities of buffel grass (Pennisetum ciliare) and one of each of the navajita grasses (B. gracilis), weeping grass (Eragrostis curvula) and tick grass (Eragrostis superva) [87]. The selection and evaluation of these ecotypes for the generation of varieties was done considering agronomic attributes (soil preparation, sowing time, amount of seed per ton, percentage of emergence, establishment potential, among others) and forage attributes (leaf production , regrowth, among others).
On line 486, insert "of" or "for" before "these resources"
Corrected in the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
