Characterizing and Quantifying Water Content in 14 Species of Bryophytes Present in Azorean Native Vegetation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The manuscript deals with an interesting topic, namely quantifying water content in fourteen bryophytes from Azorean native vegetation. It is written legibly and the facts fit together logically. I have no objection to the text part, however the graphic part does not have a good resolution. The worst is Figure 6, which is almost blurry. Is it possible to insert the graphic part in another way that does not reduce the quality of the image?
Otherwise, I like the manuscript and recommend accepting it.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1
Thank you very much for your kind words. We have now changed the figures in order to improve their resolution. Thank you.
Márcia Coelho, Rosalina Gabriel, and Claudine Ah-Peng
Reviewer 2 Report
Main comments
From the 480 species of the Azores, the authors “select” 14 species (see line 173) but the authors have not justified the selection.
“the most common and abundant bryophytes of native Azorean vegetation “ (see lines 183, 184) “Some common bryophytes” (see line 558), is that the criteria for the selection? Please justify the selection.
Obviously, the results (see lines 20 to 23, and 563 to571) could be very different if the selected species had been others
How can the authors compare the results at the Class level, when some classes (Sphagnopsida and Polytrichopsida) are represented by a single species and another classes (Jungermanniopsida and Bryopsida) by 6 species?. I propose to delete Figure 1, Figure 6 and their comments in the text
The photographs in Appendix A need to be improved. Specifically as a minimum, the photographs 1b, 1c, 2b, 4c, 6c, 8c, 8d, 9c, 10d, 11c, 11g, 12b, 12j, 13c and14b.
Line 615. 2. Herbertus azoricus (Steph.) P.W. Richards, has all the numbers of the images with “3”.
Line 623. 3. Lepidozia cupressina (Sw.) Lindenb. subsp. cupressina, has all the numbers of the images with “4”.
Line 646. 6. Frullania acicularis Hentschel & von Konrat, has all the numbers of the images with “2”.
Minor comments
Line 83. Proctor [15]; [22 17]).
Table 1, Table 2 and Appendix A, standardize the use of "&" and "et". A single criterion for the names of the authors. For example Bazzania azorica H. Buch & Perss. in Table 1 and Bazzania azorica H. Buch et H. Perss. in Appendix A.
Line 200. What mean M.C.M.C. and R.G.?, Are Márcia Coelho and Rosalina Gabriel?. In the first appointment, they should indicate it.
Line 206. “COBOS precision A-150, Spain” really is “precision 0.001 g”?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you very much for all your comments and suggestions. We tried to solve or justify every one of these issues, thus improving the quality of the manuscript. Thank you.
Márcia Coelho, Rosalina Gabriel, and Claudine Ah-Peng
Main comments
From the 480 species of the Azores, the authors “select” 14 species (see line 173) but the authors have not justified the selection.
“the most common and abundant bryophytes of native Azorean vegetation (see lines 183, 184) “Some common bryophytes” (see line 558), is that the criteria for the selection? Please justify the selection.
Obviously, the results (see lines 20 to 23, and 563 to 571) could be very different if the selected species had been others
We certainly agree that different species would present different results.
The selection of the samples was made in accordance with the taxonomic diversity of native species present on each site along the elevational gradient and also according to the abundance of the populations for each selected species, so we analyzed species that could sustain the continuous collecting pressure.
To clarify this selection, we have:
Added on line 173: “Fourteen indigenous species were selected for this study:”
- We have also changed the order of the paragraph with the criteria (lines 183-186) to the paragraph introducing the species. It now reads:
- “ Apart from taxonomic diversity, it was aimed to represent some of the most common and abundant bryophytes of native Azorean vegetation, not only to achieve a good representation of the species of the system but also to ensure that the populations were able to sustain the collecting pressure. Locally, each species selected represented the highest bryophyte biomass present on site and could non-negligibly contribute to important ecosystem services, such as water retention and storage.”
How can the authors compare the results at the Class level, when some classes (Sphagnopsida and Polytrichopsida) are represented by a single species and another classes (Jungermanniopsida and Bryopsida) by 6 species?. I propose to delete Figure 1, Figure 6 and their comments in the text
The authors agree with Reviewer 2’s comment. As the results are displayed in the following Figure 2, 3 and 4, Figure 1 and the associated comments (l271-273) in the text are deleted.
For Figure 6, because each graph is labeled by species, the authors propose to keep Figure 6 and original comments.
The photographs in Appendix A need to be improved. Specifically as a minimum, the photographs 1b, 1c, 2b, 4c, 6c, 8c, 8d, 9c, 10d, 11c, 11g, 12b, 12j, 13c and14b.
We have now replaced or improved the quality of the photographs in Appendix A.
Line 615. 2. Herbertus azoricus (Steph.) P.W. Richards, has all the numbers of the images with “3”.
We have corrected the numbers on this Plate, “3” to “2”.
Line 623. 3. Lepidozia cupressina (Sw.) Lindenb. subsp. cupressina, has all the numbers of the images with “4”.
We have corrected the numbers on this Plate, “4” to “3”.
Line 646. 6. Frullania acicularis Hentschel & von Konrat, has all the numbers of the images with “2”.
We have corrected the numbers on this Plate, “6” to “2”.
Minor comments
Line 83. Proctor [15]; [22 17]).
Corrected.
Table 1, Table 2 and Appendix A, standardize the use of "&" and "et". A single criterion for the names of the authors. For example Bazzania azorica H. Buch & Perss. in Table 1 and Bazzania azorica H. Buch et H. Perss. in Appendix A.
Corrected for all the species.
Line 200. What mean M.C.M.C. and R.G.?, Are Márcia Coelho and Rosalina Gabriel?. In the first appointment, they should indicate it.
Thank you. The text now reads: “…by the first two authors, M.C.M.C. and R.G.,…”
Line 206. “COBOS precision A-150, Spain” really is “precision 0.001 g”?
Of course. Thank you very much.
Reviewer 3 Report
This work includes an important study, since little is known about this in bryophytes. It is very well documented and presented and includes a wide altitudinal gradient and species diversity. Without a doubt, it deserves to be published in your magazine.
I am only going to make some observations on aspects that I think can improve the understanding of this work and thus improve the publication.
The methodology is very well planned, and the species and samples well documented. Despite this, there are some data that I would have liked to find in methodology
1- There is a close relationship between the habitat where the species develops and its relationships with water. There is information on the type of vegetation in the study locations, but not on temperature and precipitation, at least the annual averages could be useful to better understand the scope of the results.
2-In this same sense, the form of growth of plants is an important aspect that explains their relationship with water, perhaps the biotypes (lawns, carpets, plots,...) could be put in table 1 despite the fact that the photographs partly illustrate this aspect. On the other hand, it would also be interesting to include microhabitat data from the samples of each species, which help to understand the results. For example, Campylopus species show similar results in AWC despite their habitat differences, and I wonder if there is homogeneity in microhabitat conditions, were they in areas exposed to insolation or in shade? The biotype of some bryophytes can change significantly depending on the microhabitat. Perhaps the authors can also add exposure data from the samplings in Table 1.
On the other hand, I believe that the authors can include in the introduction some specific hypotheses related to the species in question. The questions are presented in a general way, but some concrete hypotheses about the differences obtained would help to be a more specific work. The authors explain the results very well in discussion, but it would be better if the hypotheses related to what is expected in the different species according to their biotype, morphology and habitat were presented.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 3,
Thank you very much for all your comments and suggestions. We have tried to solve or justify every one of these issues to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have answered your comments in blue. Thank you.
Márcia Coelho, Rosalina Gabriel and Claudine Ah-Peng
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This work includes an important study, since little is known about this in bryophytes. It is very well documented and presented and includes a wide altitudinal gradient and species diversity. Without a doubt, it deserves to be published in your magazine.
I am only going to make some observations on aspects that I think can improve the understanding of this work and thus improve the publication.
The methodology is very well planned, and the species and samples well documented. Despite this, there are some data that I would have liked to find in methodology
1- There is a close relationship between the habitat where the species develops and its relationships with water. There is information on the type of vegetation in the study locations, but not on temperature and precipitation, at least the annual averages could be useful to better understand the scope of the results.
Thank you. We have now included the annual precipitation and temperature average values to Section 2.1.
2-In this same sense, the form of growth of plants is an important aspect that explains their relationship with water, perhaps the biotypes (lawns, carpets, plots,...) could be put in table 1 despite the fact that the photographs partly illustrate this aspect.
Thank you. We have now included a column in Table 1, adding the life forms of each species; we have also included some pictures of the plants in the field.
On the other hand, it would also be interesting to include microhabitat data from the samples of each species, which help to understand the results. For example, Campylopus species show similar results in AWC despite their habitat differences, and I wonder if there is homogeneity in microhabitat conditions, were they in areas exposed to insolation or in shade? The biotype of some bryophytes can change significantly depending on the microhabitat.
Perhaps the authors can also add exposure data from the samplings in Table 1.
We have not measured light exposure while collecting the samples. However, the Azorean native forest environment is quite humid and shady, as was described in different works, namely by Sjögren (1973, 1978), Dias (1996), or Gabriel & Bates (2005).
On the other hand, I believe that the authors can include in the introduction some specific hypotheses related to the species in question. The questions are presented in a general way, but some concrete hypotheses about the differences obtained would help to be a more specific work. The authors explain the results very well in discussion, but it would be better if the hypotheses related to what is expected in the different species according to their biotype, morphology and habitat were presented.
The authors proposed these modifications at the end of the introduction from line 133:
“This study aims to characterize and quantify the ability of 14 bryophytes (six liverworts and eight mosses) characteristic of the native Azorean vegetation, to retain water, through different pathways, and to lose water by evaporation. The main question being: Can water relations and evaporation in bryophytes be explained by their morphological features/body architectures (internal and external structures)?
The specific research questions addressed are:
- Will Absolute Water Content (AWC) be convergent among divisions (Marchantiophyta, Bryophyta), among classes (Jungermanniopsida, Sphagnopsida, Polytrichopsida, Bryopsida)? Does AWC for bryophytes vary with elevation?
- Which pathway, ectohydric (external) or endohydric (internal) retains the most water? How are these pathways related to the morphological features of the studied species?
- How fast do bryophytes lose their water through direct evaporation and how much do they lose?
A standardized procedure/methodology from the field to the lab is proposed (Appendix C) for the measurements of Absolute Water Content (AWC), Internal Water Content (WCInt) and External Water content (WCInt).
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Major corrections
1.
Line 266 and 373. The loss of water is not a quotient, it is a subtraction. Consequently, the units cannot be g/g, they must be g.
2.
Delete the first part of specific question 1 since it cannot be achieved with the selection made by the authors. The 14 indigenous species selected as the common and abundant, are not necessarily representative of higher taxonomic levels such as family, order, class, or division. They just fall in or belong to them.
For example the representative specie of the class Bryopsida McClatchie is Bryum argenteum Hedw., which is de “Tipo” of the genus Bryum Hedw., and which is the “tipo” of the family Bryaceae Rchb., and which is the “tipo” of the order Bryales Limpr.
Delete the second part of specific question 1 since it cannot be achieved in this research.
3.
Rearrange the specific questions according with the conclusions as:
1. Will Absolute Water Content (AWC) varied a lot among selected species?.
2. Which pathway, ectohydric (external) or endohydric (internal), retains the most water? How are these pathways related to the morphological features of the species?
3. How fast do bryophytes lose their water through direct evaporation, and how much do they lose?
4.
If the authors insist on maintaining the higher taxonomic categories, they should work at the division level to simplify the graphs and the results presentation. Consequently, one figure for the Marchantiophyta (in V2 as fig.2) and one figure for the Bryophyta (in v.2 as fig. 3 and 4)
5.
Figure 6 (in V2) Group the 4 classes into two divisions to avoid leaving two single-spec graphs.
6.
Lines 574 and 575, delete “and the AWC values were significantly different (p < 0.05) among the four classes tested;
7.
Delete reference 65 (lines 881-873), is the same as 56
Minor corrections
Line 751: Tortula ruralis ssp. ruralis on italic
Lines 776 and 777: Polytrichum alpestre on italic
Line 834. The liverwort flora
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Once again we are very grateful to your insightful comments and tried to accommodate all the necessary changes. I include specific answers to the different issues on the attached file..
Kind regards,
Rosalina Gabriel (on behalf of the authors)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Only two minor corrections:
Line 395. Delete (g/g) or put (g/min)
Line 842. The liverwort “flora”, not “fora”
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We have now corrected all the mentioned items. Thank you very much for your interest in this paper and all your corrections.
Kind regards,
Rosalina Gabriel
