Cultural Landscape as Both a Threat and an Opportunity to Preserve a High Conservation Value of Vascular Flora: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is to be about relationships of local flora species richness, species abundance and landscape composition – however, the clear aim and question of the paper is missing, analyses are superficial and even all this is poorly presented. Most of the report is lumped counts of species or numbers of species recordings from the regions. It is hard to get analytical extract of all of this. There are data, but its origin is poorly presented and acknowledgements for works/colleagues missing. Finally, the outcome of all this does not look revolutionary, though, I see that something interesting can be extracted. The consideration of regional scale diversity (overstated gamma-diversity) is valuable, but not at the level of all these green bar figures, while its interior structure at site (habitat patch level) diversity (you can call it alpha-diversity).

The overall structure of the manuscript titles can be correct; however, the information therein does not follow general rules of sci-publications or is poorly presented. Also, the writing style is confusing and the use of terminology and emphasis in presentations is unusual. Text requires major adjustments.

Specific comments:

Abstract is too overloaded with technical details and could/should be generalized. Writing style or English need major revision. Here are only some picks:

10 I do get that it sounds correct, but term „floristic-ecological lists“ is still confusing and just species lists or analogue term use would be appreciated by readers. Also, it leaves unclear, what are “floristic data” to the earlier lists.

11 please note Poland here as well, maybe take it from the line 9

12 sentence with the digitalization software is not the information for the Abstract. Please delete the sentence

12 remove basic, as grid here is just a grid

13 +- please rephrase the sentence, as it is not easy to read English

15 name taxon group here – probably vascular plants. Term biodiversity usually means all kind of taxon levels combined

15-18 can be condensed

17 and later – conservatism – or conservations value? Conservatism sounds as some kind ecological strategy type

19 “basic squares (0.5 km x 0.5 km),” -> just “grid cells”

19-20 “basing on numbers of species (qualitative aspect) and number of floristic data (quantitative aspect)” very confusing approach and definitions, as richness is also continuous variable (quantitative) while qualitative is usually expected to be non-measurable but descriptive

21 “diversity and evenness of land use type proportions” ->  diversity and evenness of land use

21-22 … than on land use types – please revise as confusing

22 This indicates … please revise the sentence or join with previous.

23-24 Please revise writing style – sounds very artificial or administrative style

24 remove “consequently” as this is part of the results

25 largely duplicates 23-24 – join

 

INTRO – here is provided the reference listing on the related topics is a style “has been studied” however, the study topic, background of the objective and direction to the problem to be solved is missing. Major update is required

42 just one reference as many researches?

43-45 is “directly dependent” then please, maybe reference, or otherwise, why to state this at all. Maybe think to animals is of secondary importance.

46-51 – nearly half of the reference list 4-27 – is such overload really needed?

62 some abbreviation are not defined, yet  (it long label exists, but Abstract does not count)

 

M&M- some parts are too short, some in not proper order, and table cross-referencing makes it a hard and confusing reading – Major revision is needed

101 grid and “basic squares” are not explained yet – please do it prior going to details

110-112 revise sentence

110 Mapping activity and background are not reported. Method, references should be provided before these estimates. Please restructure the text

111-112 unclear and undefined terminology “high number of floristic-ecological lists and especially floristic data ” as relevee is also floristics

120 “floristic-ecological lists (relevés)” – please use shorter term for text, and usually they are called just floristic species lists or B-B plot data or ….

124-125 unclear, revise “sums of floristic data of individual species and groups of species in habitats differing in land use type”

126 finally, “floristic data were collected (records of individual species)” – could you state it earlier and maybe just use the term of species data – readers have wider scale of experience and very complicated terms are confusing

129 conservation value of flora i.e. floras is a species list of the region? Probably misused term

“stenotopic” in modern literature, they are called just habitat specialists or similar

Around 133 – as the methological paper is very local, more details should be provided.

137 species CONSERVATION value (just ‘species value’ carries low information)

Table 3 abbreviations should be explained – reference [42] for this is not sufficient as well reference for other tables 4-8 is very confusing. In particular, publication is very local and in Polish.

142 formulas are not readable, out of format

150 “we used” – I see only one author in the list. Will you have more?

178 map data sources should be listed and referenced

179 still to recall – in landscape ecology grid cell is used instead of basic square

184 hard to believe that this is probability – more it looks like as proportion or percent, and then the definition of 185-186 is not needed

187-192 basic well know information what can be skipped and if really needed, above is sufficiently many proper literature available, thesis is not a proper reference in the sci-literature i.e. skip [62]

Several indices are not explained. E.g. Mean deviation of uneven proportions of land use type

Information sources about species properties are missing.

Analytical methods section is missing. Should be added

 

RESULTs

197-199 arguing about the habitat specificity is for the discussion, not for the Results. Then proper support from the literature (references) can be provided as well

Fig 5 can be skipped as minor extra to the text report – just duplication

Fig 6 – statements about shared should be corrected as these are habitat specialist species estimates

To sum up – Fig 3-6 could be transformed into table for condensed reading and comparison. Figures waste the publication space with minor informative overview effect

207 revise writing style for the result reporting style – this is just (predictive) relationship as species richness increases with land use type richness

Fig 7 – diversity is Shannon. Here is number of habitat types. Model structure and x and x2 p-values should be reported

Fig 8 unkown landscape indicator. Statistics missing

213…. definition move to methods and add estimation formula

Fig 9, 10 etc model stats?

Fig 10 is rudimentary as duplicates Fig 8. Move to electronic Appendix

Fig 11 but maybe and 12 – in table would be more suitable for overview.

In total – green bars are really poor quality reading and the information there should be reorganized and purpose restated

246 Figure reference numbering is not in proper order

Fig 13 -17 missing X label. All three could be organized into one multi-variable plot

Again, model building stats are missing to assess the quality of results. How the landscape predictor was selected

Fig 19 X and Y should be transposed – landscape can be the predictor and therefore X.

Same for Fig 20 -21 and respective text as above.

 

DISC – a new discussion should be written – the present has many statements with unclear link to analyses or poorly referenced (in contrast to intro) while topics are popular intensively discussed. I provide just a few picks, Also, tests and new analyses should not be provided here (e.g. L 347), - for this is the Result part of the paper.

295 reference for the paradigm, please, and clearer definition of that

296 references about the insufficiency

301-305 confusing statements

306-318 I do not see the point here as the discussion

… etc

 

CONCLUSION – just another summary of the results – more generalized messages should be left

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The processes of vegetation cover transformation are very interesting, therefore the monitoring results for such a long period with high detail, as performed in the article, are especially valuable. However, I would like to clarify some aspects of the work.

As we can see from the map, it can be seen that marginal biotopes dominate the аrable fields, do they include segetal, ruderal vegetation, forest edges? On page 16, pp. 369-370, they are defined as «Some of the smallest wooded patches, composed of a group  of trees and/or shrubs surrounded by fields, were classified as marginal habitats». Marginal biotopes are not a widely used concept, so it would be appropriate to clarify what types of vegetation are included in marginal biotopes? It will be appropriate to give characteristics to other types of biotopes as well.

The article is overloaded with identical graphs, which are often hard to read and not always understandable. Is it possible to submit some information in a different form?

Fig. 12. The data from the two graphs do not agree. In the Arable fields (1) graph A shows 38 natural species, but graph B does not record any floristic finds of natural species for this type of land.

289-292 floristic conservation value assessment is marginalized. However, on the other hand, it similarly marginalizes the influence of stenotopic species, associated with the evaluated ecosystem, which are usually very rare. What processes take place during "marginalization"?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The clean version of the MS looks messy and with errors.

The paper improvements have been made, but there are still many inconsistencies to standard paper structure, size, presentation style etc. Writing can be condensed and improved for the reading.

Statistical models do not have parameter tests, models are presented in improper quality. There is still too much duplication between text and tables and figures.

Please check for double spaces and spaces before the comma.

I still find dissertations in the reference list. Contemporary thesis consist of papers, therefore, the real published paper should be cited. E.g. 6. Aavik; or many literature which quality and information cannot be assessed (e.g. very local sources such as ‘Roślin UAM w Poznaniu’)

The style of reference list looks to vary in format, e.g and in journal name abbreviation, of 43 doubled journal name, or 63 with google link

Appendix A has Polish text

 

Title  could be more catchy, as in present it says quite little

Abstract

19 ‘squares (0.5 km x 0.5 km),’ -> no need to duplicate information, just ->  grid cells 

21 ‘on the grid of squares’ -> in grid cells – ect though the text

22 type proportions -> do you mean -> the disproportion of types?

22 ‘The expression of’ skip as unnecessary

25  ... plants and SPECIES OF floristic c...

54 Please provide reference for the ‘Council of Europe Landscape Convention’

55 also, if you have any local activity reference , particularly, as you refer on very specific aspects in it 56-57

77-86 do you have any information source for all this local background?

91-92 sounds that somebody has published science on this – could you refer on it

94 ‘well studied’ – any reference support for it?

126 vs 138 equally important formulas with the same complexity, but two is in text, others highlighted - could you homogenize the presentation

172 can be skipped as well known index and formula. Please provide reference for it, instead

174-178 please skip, as basic knowledge

180 delete UN from uneven as deviation marks unevenness from the uniformity

188-189 remove line break as it is the same explanation parts of the index

198 double ‘land’

203 messy sentence

213-214 Strange, if you have Statistica, why you do not use Statistica for regression analyses from start to end. Also, I am not sure, which function author use to estimate p-value?

Table 9 Please add numbering of habitat types into the table, as this is the nearest source to understand the labelling in bar-figures

218, 227 There are old figures left in the clean version. I assume they were actually removed to reduce duplication with the Table 9

Results

222 Please add (603 SPECIES, 69.6%... ; in other cases it is not necessary

228 skip ‘the analysed’ as this is self evident

229 number coding of habitats in the text is very confusing.

Also, it is not clear, between which habitat types the sharing is estimated

231 square> – grid cells

Fig 3 and 4 and 5 parameters of regression lines have too many digits presented.

Please follow also English commas in graphs as well

235 – 239 duplicating statements for the method. Please delete ‘Mean deviation of uneven proportions of various land use types is a measure of deviation from this optimal scenario….’

241 ‘which is a measure of landscape heterogeneity in squares’ skip, duplicate

…

Analogous  comments for the whole Results

Discussion – more comparison with the trends from the literature would be needed throughout

341 penetrate them ? confusing sentence

345-347 optimize sentence

356 refuges -> refugia

363 2 -> two

363 describes -> described

381 revise wording ‘Very much like earlier reports’

390… forest topic is repeated. Could you combine

418, 447  3 -> three

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your detailed review, numerous comments, remarks, and suggestions. They have certainly improved our manuscript. I have introduced nearly all the suggested changes. In some cases, I explain why a change should not be introduced. Please see below for details.

Kind regards,

Author

The clean version of the MS looks messy and with errors.

The paper improvements have been made, but there are still many inconsistencies to standard paper structure, size, presentation style etc. Writing can be condensed and improved for the reading.

Statistical models do not have parameter tests, models are presented in improper quality. There is still too much duplication between text and tables and figures.

I thank the reviewer for this important comment. Simple regression models are visualized in the graphs and it is clearly visible that considering the large sample size, the relationship between the two analysed variables is significant. To confirm that, the Student t statistic was calculated, and using the Student t distribution tables, the p-value was estimated. Now the test statistics are placed in the graph. In all cases the relationship between the two analysed variables turned out to be significant at p< 0.001.

Please check for double spaces and spaces before the comma.

Corrected, thank you.

I still find dissertations in the reference list. Contemporary thesis consist of papers, therefore, the real published paper should be cited. E.g. 6. Aavik; or many literature which quality and information cannot be assessed (e.g. very local sources such as ‘Roślin UAM w Poznaniu’)

The dissertation (Aavik, 2009) has been replaced by a publication co-authored by Aavik T. [6]. Prace Zakładu Taksonomii Roślin UAM w Poznaniu and the other cited local works were peer-reviewed before publication and are accessible to the scientific community.They are necessary to present optimally the problems discussed in this manuscript.

The style of reference list looks to vary in format, e.g and in journal name abbreviation, of 43 doubled journal name, or 63 with google link

Corrected, thank you.

Appendix A has Polish text

 Corrected, thank you.

Title  could be more catchy, as in present it says quite little

Corrected as follows:

Cultural landscape as both a threat and an opportunity to preserve a high conservation value of vascular flora: a case study.

Abstract

19 ‘squares (0.5 km x 0.5 km),’ -> no need to duplicate information, just ->  grid cells 

Corrected, thank you.

21 ‘on the grid of squares’ -> in grid cells – ect though the text

Corrected, thank you.

22 type proportions -> do you mean -> the disproportion of types?

I mean “contributions of land use types”, so I’ve corrected the sentence.

22 ‘The expression of’ skip as unnecessary

Corrected, thank you.

25  ... plants and SPECIES OF floristic c...

Corrected, thank you.

54 Please provide reference for the ‘Council of Europe Landscape Convention’

Provided, thank you.

55 also, if you have any local activity reference , particularly, as you refer on very specific aspects in it 56-57

Provided, thank you

77-86 do you have any information source for all this local background?

Provided, thank you

91-92 sounds that somebody has published science on this – could you refer on it

This is only my own information, based on a very good knowledge of the study area.

94 ‘well studied’ – any reference support for it?

Provided, thank you

126 vs 138 equally important formulas with the same complexity, but two is in text, others highlighted - could you homogenize the presentation

Corrected, thank you.

172 can be skipped as well known index and formula. Please provide reference for it, instead

Corrected, thank you.

174-178 please skip, as basic knowledge

Corrected, thank you.

180 delete UN from uneven as deviation marks unevenness from the uniformity

Corrected, thank you.

188-189 remove line break as it is the same explanation parts of the index

Corrected, thank you.

198 double ‘land’

Corrected, thank you.

203 messy sentence

Corrected (removed “most of the”).

213-214 Strange, if you have Statistica, why you do not use Statistica for regression analyses from start to end. Also, I am not sure, which function author use to estimate p-value?

The p-value was first calculated by Statistica 13, using the Student t statistic, by another person, mentioned in the Acknowledgements.

Table 9 Please add numbering of habitat types into the table, as this is the nearest source to understand the labelling in bar-figures

Numbering of habitat types in the table does not seem necessary.The only bar charts (Figs. 11, 12) are labelled clearly.

218, 227 There are old figures left in the clean version. I assume they were actually removed to reduce duplication with the Table 9

Only the necessary figures are left in the revised version. Table 9 shows data that are not presented in any figure.

Results

222 Please add (603 SPECIES, 69.6%... ; in other cases it is not necessary

Corrected, thank you.

228 skip ‘the analysed’ as this is self evident

Corrected, thank you.

229 number coding of habitats in the text is very confusing.

The habitats were not coded but counted here: “Numbers of species shared by two, three, four, and five land use types were as follows: 138, 141, 162, and 125, respectively.”

Also, it is not clear, between which habitat types the sharing is estimated

Clarified, see above.

231 square> – grid cells

Corrected, thank you.

Fig 3 and 4 and 5 parameters of regression lines have too many digits presented.

Please follow also English commas in graphs as well

Corrected, thank you.

235 – 239 duplicating statements for the method. Please delete ‘Mean deviation of uneven proportions of various land use types is a measure of deviation from this optimal scenario….’

Corrected, thank you.

241 ‘which is a measure of landscape heterogeneity in squares’ skip, duplicate

Corrected, thank you.

Analogous  comments for the whole Results

Corrected, thank you.

Discussion – more comparison with the trends from the literature would be needed throughout

Corrected, thank you.

341 penetrate them ? confusing sentence

Corrected, thank you (removed “penetrate them but”).

345-347 optimize sentence

Corrected, thank you.

356 refuges -> refugia

Corrected, thank you.

363 2 -> two

Corrected, thank you.

363 describes -> described

Corrected, thank you.

381 revise wording ‘Very much like earlier reports’

Corrected, thank you (“Similarly to…”)

390… forest topic is repeated. Could you Combie

In fact, the meaning is not repeated, but different, so the text was reworded to make it clearer: “the proportion of forests in grid cells does not affect remarkably the species richness of nonsynanthropic native plants.”

418, 447  3 -> three

Corrected, thank you.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The autor still ignores the request to provide proper numbering of habitat types somewhere in the table. In a present version, I can find two different numbering systems (Fig 1 and Fig 2) and later the use of number-labelling in the text (L231) does not refer, which system is used in each particular case. Or the number-labelling of Fig 1 and Fig 2 should be combined.

 

Fig 7-9 could be designed more nicely, but ....

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the last suggestions. I have introduced into manuscript.

Kind regards,

Author

 

The autor still ignores the request to provide proper numbering of habitat types somewhere in the table. In a present version, I can find two different numbering systems (Fig 1 and Fig 2) and later the use of number-labelling in the text (L231) does not refer, which system is used in each particular case. Or the number-labelling of Fig 1 and Fig 2 should be combined.

 The numerical designation of habitat types has been introduced compatible (see Fig. 1-2. 9-10).

Fig 7-9 could be designed more nicely, but .

Fig. 7-9 reorganized into Fig. 7.