Changes in the Occurrence of Five Invasive Plant Species in Different Ecosystem Types between 2009–2018 in Hungary

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I like the approach, but it is clear that the data quality is poor. The enormous fluctuations, as illustrated by Table A2, indicate that different algorithms were used to identify the species in different years. If you want to turn this into a useful ms., you must address this issue.

Also, there is a potential Type I error issue. 17 ecosystems times 5 species gives 85 comparisons, of which 14 were "significant". If you were using a p value of .05, you would expect about 4 Type I errors. Since instead you used R, it is difficult to say how many would be expected, but probably more than 4. Some, such as decreases in presence around buildings, might be explicable if there has been an increase in weed control policies; if not, the results seem unlikely to be valid.

English is not bad for non-native speakers. You sometimes forget to put "and" before the last member of a list. But that is relatively trivial.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

 

Thank you very much for evaluating our manuscript, and providing us the opportunity to submit again a revised version of the manuscript. We appreciate your positive and helpful comments.

 

We revised the manuscript by accepting all the changes suggested by reviewers. We copied the reviewer comments below and marked our responses in red.

’I like the approach, but it is clear that the data quality is poor. The enormous fluctuations, as illustrated by Table A2, indicate that different algorithms were used to identify the species in different years. If you want to turn this into a useful ms., you must address this issue.’

Thanks a lot for your kind remarks and advice regarding with our datasets. Regarding the reliability and usability of the LUCAS field survey database, it is important to point out that the field photographs were taken in spring in each of the years studied (2009, 2012, 2015 and 2018), within the vegetation period (April to August). According to the biologist who performed the visual interpretation of approximately 100 0000 photographs, more than 95% of the photographs were taken during the vegetation season and clearly identified whether or not the invasive plants under study were present in the area around the field observation point. The large fluctuations between the national-level occurrence of the investigated species of each year, as mentioned by the reviewer, are mainly because the locations of the LUCAS photos taken every 3 years could differ by a few tens or hundreds of meters. The taking of photos was also identified by manual field GPS measurements during the field survey. These GPS data were used to create the occurrence point map of invasive plants. Therefore, we believe that mainly these spatial variations and changeable weather conditions in a given year may have caused the relatively high variability in the national level occurrence data.

Therefore, despite the data above mentioned inconsistency, the database is well suited to analyses the level of invasion (occurrence of the investigated invasive plants) within habitat types, as the even distribution of statistically valuable LUCAS survey points (4600-5000 point/year) allows for this.

The uniform spatial network of LUCAS field survey points covers the whole study area (country), therefore the number of LUCAS points within each habitat type each year is a statistically valuable quantity and a good representation of the infestation of a given land cover type with a given plant in a given year. To avoid large fluctuations in the LU-CAS survey based NGDIP occurrence datas between years (2009, 2012, 2015 and 2018), and to ensure comparability of data, we did not use the raw infected/uninfected propor-tion of LUCAS points within ecosystem types to express the level of biological invasion of each habitat. Rather, we subtracted this ratio from the national averages of biological in-vasion for a given year and for a given plant, thus smoothing out the variability of the data due to different survey years (2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018).

In agreement with the opinion of Reviewer 1 we added the following new sentences to the methodological chapter

Line 173-183:

“          A LUCAS point was marked as invaded with a given plant if the species was clearly recognizable in at least one of the LUCAS survey photographs taken at the point, i.e., at least one individual of the species was visible. at least one of the five photographs taken at a given LUCAS point showed an organ of the plant (flower, leaf, seedpod, etc.). If there were no identifiable invasive plant species in the photo, that LUCAS point was marked as non-invaded. During visual interpretation, carried out by biologists with field experience, great care was taken to only register invasive plants in the picture when the identification was certain. This means invaded points can be rather underrepresented.

Regarding the reliability and usability of the LUCAS field survey database, it is important to point out that 95% of the field photographs were taken within the vegeta-tion period (April to August).” 

 

Line 202-211:

“The fluctuations between the national-level occurrence of the investigated species per year beside their change in cover may result partly from the fact that LUCAS points could not be recovered with a high precision each year, and the accuracy of the field GPS measurements done every three years have a certain error. To reduce error as much as possible, the field GSP coordinates were used for the analyses instead of the regularly distributed LUCAS designation points.

Therefore, despite the mentioned inconsistency, the database is well suited to analyses the level of invasion (occurrence of the investigated invasive plants) within habitat types, as the national cover of the high number of LUCAS survey points (4600-5000 point/year) can level out the eventual shortfalls of the database.”

 

Also, there is a potential Type I error issue. 17 ecosystems times 5 species gives 85 comparisons, of which 14 were "significant". If you were using a p-value of .05, you would expect about 4 Type I errors. Since you instead used R, it is difficult to say how many would be expected, but probably more than 4. Some, such as decreases in presence around buildings, might be explicable if there has been an increase in weed control policies; if not, the results seem unlikely to be valid.

Thanks alot for your kind remarks! In our research, we directly selected five common Eurasia invasive species in order to have a statistically assessable set of incidence data for each of the years under study (2009, 2012, 2015, 2018). Because of the eradication is not common, not required by Hungarian and EU laws, therefore the changes in their occurrence data are probably not a reflexion of any direct anthropogenic influences. The most of the occurence of these spacies can be explanable with its spontaneous spreading related with non-direct human related or natural driving forces (climate change, secondary wind of road network etc. see our previous publications). The large number of occurence datas (hundreds of invaded points detected in the years of the survey) allows us to draw conclusions that the error due to direct anthropogenic effects (planting or eradication) is negligible.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

Re: Review of Manuscript [Land 2492899]: "Changes in the occurrence of five invasive plant species in different ecosystem types between 2009-2018 in Hungary"

I have had the opportunity to review your manuscript titled "Changes in the Occurrence of five invasive plant species in different ecosystem types between 2009-2018 in Hungary" and would like to provide you with my feedback and evaluation. I appreciate the effort and contribution you have made toward understanding the spatiotemporal variability of invasive plant species in Hungary.

Strengths:

The study addresses an important issue by highlighting the global problem of invasive plant species and their impacts on conservation, human health, and soil degradation. The inclusion of specific examples and references strengthens the relevance of your research.

Your use of the National Geospatial Database of Invasive Plants (NGDIP) and the Land Use and Coverage Area Frame Survey (LUCAS) point-cover photo data collections provide a robust foundation for your analysis. The large dataset of over 100,000 EUROSTAT LUCAS field photographs from multiple years enhances the reliability and generalizability of your findings.

Your aim to investigate the spatiotemporal variability of five common invasive plant species in Hungary demonstrates a clear focus. The use of the Ecosystem Map of Hungary (EMH) developed by the Hungarian Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem Services (MAES-HU) project as the basis for your analysis adds relevance and specificity to your study.

Please consider the following suggestions to improve the clarity and scientific rigor of your manuscript. Overall, I believe your research has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field of invasive plant management and conservation.

General comments:

The abstract provides a concise overview of the study, highlighting the importance of understanding biological invasions and their impacts on native species and ecosystems. The inclusion of specific invasive plant species adds clarity to the research objectives. However, there are several areas where the abstract could be improved to enhance its scientific rigor and clarity.

While the abstract mentions potential applications of your methodology for future research, it does not explicitly state the novel aspects or unique contributions of your study. Providing a clear outline of the novelty and contributions would strengthen the appeal and originality of your work.

The introduction could be strengthened by clearly stating the research objective or research question. Providing a focused statement of the problem would enhance the readers' understanding of the specific goals of your research.

Overall, the "Materials and Methods" section provides sufficient information about the studied invasive species, the databases used, and the methodology employed. It allows for the replication of the study and provides a clear understanding of how the data were collected and analyzed. However, it would be beneficial to include more details about the statistical methods used for data analysis and any statistical tests performed to validate the findings. Additionally, mentioning any ethical considerations or permissions obtained for the study would enhance the transparency of the research.

Methodological Detail: Lack of detailed information; the section does not provide sufficient details about the specific methods used to identify and classify the invasive species. It would be helpful to know the specific morphological characteristics or criteria used to identify each species and how the accuracy of identification was ensured.

·  Incomplete description of data collection: The description of the data collection process, particularly regarding the LUCAS surveys and the National Geospatial Database of Invasive Plants (NGDIP), is limited. Details such as the sampling design, sample size, and representativeness of the data should be included to assess the robustness and reliability of the findings.

·  Lack of information on data analysis: The section does not provide information on the statistical or GIS methods employed to analyze the data. It is important to describe the specific analytical techniques used to assess the invasion infestation and to evaluate the significance of the observed trends or patterns.

·  Limited information on validation: While the Ecosystem Map of Hungary (EMH) is mentioned, there is no information provided regarding the validation process or the reliability of the map. It would be valuable to know how the accuracy of the map was assessed, including the methods used for validation and the level of agreement between the map and field observations.

·  Ensure consistent use of terminology throughout the text. For example, in some instances, "invasion" is used to describe the occurrence of a species, while in other cases, "infestation" is used. Choose one term and use it consistently.

I would like to suggest to improve the presentation of the results:

Use consistent terminology: Ensure consistent use of terminology throughout the text. For example, in some instances, "invasion" is used to describe the occurrence of a species, while in other cases, "infestation" is used. Choose one term and use it consistently. While the text provides information about the occurrence and trends of invasive species in different ecosystem types, it would be helpful to provide some additional context. For example, you could include information about the potential ecological and economic impacts of these invasive species, their spread patterns, or the factors contributing to their invasion success. This additional information would enhance the understanding and significance of the results.

The conclusion could be strengthened by restating the main results and emphasizing their significance. The authors should explain the underlying factors driving variations in invasion levels among ecosystem types, such as human processes and disturbance levels. They should discuss the conservation implications, highlighting vulnerable ecosystems and proposing management strategies. It would be valuable to emphasize the broader contribution of the research to invasion dynamics and the importance of proactive management for ecosystem preservation.

I kindly advise the authors to review the format of the table with utmost attention, taking into consideration the specific guidelines provided by the journal. It is recommended to ensure that the table structure, layout, and font styles align harmoniously with the journal's requirements.

Please consider these suggestions to improve the clarity and scientific rigor of your manuscript. Overall, I believe your research has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field of invasive plant management and conservation in Hungary.

Thank you for the opportunity to review your work. I appreciate your dedication to this important topic and look forward to seeing the revised version of your manuscript. I will look forward to seeing the published paper and congratulate the authors on the work done here.

Sincerely,

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer 2,

 

thank you very much for evaluating our manuscript and providing us the opportunity to submit again a revised version of the manuscript. We appreciate your positive and helpful comments.

 

We revised the manuscript by accepting all the changes suggested by reviewers. We copied the reviewer comments below and marked our responses in red.

Re: Review of Manuscript [Land 2492899]: "Changes in the occurrence of five invasive plant species in different ecosystem types between 2009-2018 in Hungary"

‘I have had the opportunity to review your manuscript titled "Changes in the Occurrence of five invasive plant species in different ecosystem types between 2009-2018 in Hungary" and would like to provide you with my feedback and evaluation. I appreciate the effort and contribution you have made toward understanding the spatiotemporal variability of invasive plant species in Hungary.

Strengths:

The study addresses an important issue by highlighting the global problem of invasive plant species and their impacts on conservation, human health, and soil degradation. The inclusion of specific examples and references strengthens the relevance of your research.

Your use of the National Geospatial Database of Invasive Plants (NGDIP) and the Land Use and Coverage Area Frame Survey (LUCAS) point-cover photo data collections provide a robust foundation for your analysis. The large dataset of over 100,000 EUROSTAT LUCAS field photographs from multiple years enhances the reliability and generalizability of your findings.

Your aim to investigate the spatiotemporal variability of five common invasive plant species in Hungary demonstrates a clear focus. The use of the Ecosystem Map of Hungary (EMH) developed by the Hungarian Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem Services (MAES-HU) project as the basis for your analysis adds relevance and specificity to your study.

Please consider the following suggestions to improve the clarity and scientific rigor of your manuscript. Overall, I believe your research has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field of invasive plant management and conservation.’

Thanks a lot for your kind opinion!

General comments:

The abstract provides a concise overview of the study, highlighting the importance of understanding biological invasions and their impacts on native species and ecosystems. The inclusion of specific invasive plant species adds clarity to the research objectives. However, there are several areas where the abstract could be improved to enhance its scientific rigor and clarity.

While the abstract mentions potential applications of your methodology for future research, it does not explicitly state the novel aspects or unique contributions of your study. Providing a clear outline of the novelty and contributions would strengthen the appeal and originality of your work.

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions of on the redesign of the abstract. We agree that we need to better highlight the new scientific results and the novelty of our publication. Therefore, we modified the title of outr article and totally rephrased our abstract:

New title (Line 2-3):

“Invasive plant species in various land cover (ecosystem) cate-gories: a spatio-temporal investigation in Hungary”

New rewritten Abstract (Line 12-33):

„Modelling and analysis of spatio-temporal characteristics of plant invasion can help mapping and predicting the spread of invasive plants. The aim of our research was to investigate the spatio-temporal variability of five common invasive plant species (Ailanthus altissima, Asclepias syriaca, Elaeagnus angustifolia, Robinia pseudoacacia, Solidago spp.) within different land cover (ecosystem) type categories. The basis of the study was the National Geospatial Database of Invasive Plants (NGDIP) of Hungary, and the ecosystem types of the Ecosystem Map of Hungary (EMH). The GIS-based analysis of the detailed occurrence database of the invasive species (NGDIP) and the thematic land cover (ecosystem) type maps (EMH) examined allows us to answer the question in which habitat types the occurrence and distribution of the given invasive plant has stagnated, decreased or increased between 2006 and 2018. We developed a methodology with relevant data sources, and demonstrated invasion variation, which can be used for future management planning and invasion biology research. Our results show that Asclepias s. and Robinia p.a are increasingly threatening grasslands and are also spreading more intensively in complex cultivated areas. The occurrence of Ailanthus a. and Asclepias s. are declining in built up areas eventually due to increasingly extreme environmental conditions of cities or modified urban planning. The spread of Solidago spp. is increasingly common in wetlands, threatening the biodiversity of floodplain (riparian) vegetation.”

The introduction could be strengthened by clearly stating the research objective or research question. Providing a focused statement of the problem would enhance the readers' understanding of the specific goals of your research.

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on the rethinking of the introduction chapter of our manuscript. We modified our research questions (objectives), and replaced the previous ones with these clearer questions (Line 68-71):

• What has been the trend in the level of invasion of different types of land cover (ecosystems) in Hungary between 2006 and 2018?
• Which types of ecosystems of conservation importance are most threatened by the biological invasion of the studied species?

Overall, the "Materials and Methods" section provides sufficient information about the studied invasive species, the databases used, and the methodology employed. It allows for the replication of the study and provides a clear understanding of how the data were collected and analyzed. However, it would be beneficial to include more details about the statistical methods used for data analysis and any statistical tests performed to validate the findings. Additionally, mentioning any ethical considerations or permissions obtained for the study would enhance the transparency of the research.

Methodological Detail: Lack of detailed information; the section does not provide sufficient details about the specific methods used to identify and classify the invasive species. It would be helpful to know the specific morphological characteristics or criteria used to identify each species and how the accuracy of identification was ensured.

In agreement with the opinion of Reviewer 2 we put this new sentences into the methodological chapter (Line 179-184):

“During visual interpretation, carried out by biologists with field experience, great care was taken to only register invasive plants in the picture when the identification was certain. This means invaded points can be rather underrepresented.

Regarding the reliability and usability of the LUCAS field survey database, it is important to point out that 95% of the field photographs were taken within the vegetation period (April to August).” 

• Incomplete description of data collection: The description of the data collection process, particularly regarding the LUCAS surveys and the National Geospatial Database of Invasive Plants (NGDIP), is limited. Details such as the sampling design, sample size, and representativeness of the data should be included to assess the robustness and reliability of the findings.

In agreement with the opinion of Reviewer 2 we put this new sentences into the methodological chapter after Table 1 which shows clearly the data structure (Line 203-2012):

„The fluctuations between the national-level occurrence of the investigated species per year beside their change in cover may result partly from the fact that LUCAS points could not be recovered with a high precision each year, and the accuracy of the field GPS measurements done every three years have a certain error. To reduce error as much as possible, the field GSP coordinates were used for the analyses instead of the regularly distributed LUCAS designation points.

Therefore, despite the mentioned inconsistency, the database is well suited to analyses the level of invasion (occurrence of the investigated invasive plants) within habitat types, as the national cover of the high number of LUCAS survey points (4600-5000 point/year) can level out the eventual shortfalls of the database.”

• Lack of information on data analysis: The section does not provide information on the statistical or GIS methods employed to analyze the data. It is important to describe the specific analytical techniques used to assess the invasion infestation and to evaluate the significance of the observed trends or patterns.

In agreement with the opinion of Reviewer 2, the following sentences have been added to section 2.3 GIS and statistical methods of the manuscript (Line 174-183):

“A LUCAS point was marked as invaded with a given plant if the species was clearly recognizable in at least one of the LUCAS survey photographs taken at the point, i.e., at least one individual of the species was visible. at least one of the five photographs taken at a given LUCAS point showed an organ of the plant (flower, leaf, seedpod, etc.). If there were no identifiable invasive plant species in the photo, that LUCAS point was marked as non-invaded. During visual interpretation, carried out by biologists with field experience, great care was taken to only register invasive plants in the picture when the identification was certain. This means invaded points can be rather underrepresented.

Regarding the reliability and usability of the LUCAS field survey database, it is important to point out that 95% of the field photographs were taken within the vegeta-tion period (April to August). “

 We extended the subchapter of GIS methodology with the following sentences (Line 252-256)

„To avoid large fluctuations in the LUCAS survey based NGDIP occurrence datas between years (2009, 2012, 2015 and 2018), and to ensure comparability, we did not use the raw invaded/uninvaded proportion of LUCAS points within land cover (ecosystem) types to express the level of biological invasion of each habitat. Rather, we subtracted this ratio from the national averages of invaded points for a given year per species.”

• Limited information on validation: While the Ecosystem Map of Hungary (EMH) is mentioned, there is no information provided regarding the validation process or the reliability of the map. It would be valuable to know how the accuracy of the map was assessed, including the methods used for validation and the level of agreement between the map and field observations.

The following international publications, which are referenced in the manuscript, explain in detail the methodology of the Ecosystem Map of Hungary (EMH), the degree of thematic and spatial accuracy, and the methodology of its validation:

11. Tanács, E.; Bede-Fazekas, Á.; Csecserits, A.; Fodor, L.K.; Pásztor, L.; Somodi, I.; Varga, A.; Vári, Á. Assessing Eco-system Condition at the National Level in Hungary-Indicators, Approaches, Challenges. One Ecosystem 2022, 7, e81543.
12. Tanács, E.; Vári, Á.; Bede-Fazekas, Á.; Báldi, A.; Csákvári, E.; Endrédi, A.; Fabók, V.; Kisné Fodor, L.; Kiss, M.; Koncz, P.; et al. Finding the Green Grass in the Haystack? Integrated National Assessment of Ecosystem Services and Condition in Hungary, in Support of Conservation and Planning. Sustainability (Switzerland) 2023, 15, doi:10.3390/su15118489.

• Ensure consistent use of terminology throughout the text. For example, in some instances, "invasion" is used to describe the occurrence of a species, while in other cases, "infestation" is used. Choose one term and use it consistently.

In full agreement with Reviewer 2, the words infested and infected have been changed to invaded throughout the text.

I would like to suggest to improve the presentation of the results:

Use consistent terminology: Ensure consistent use of terminology throughout the text. For example, in some instances, "invasion" is used to describe the occurrence of a species, while in other cases, "infestation" is used. Choose one term and use it consistently. While the text provides information about the occurrence and trends of invasive species in different ecosystem types, it would be helpful to provide some additional context. For example, you could include information about the potential ecological and economic impacts of these invasive species, their spread patterns, or the factors contributing to their invasion success. This additional information would enhance the understanding and significance of the results.

In full agreement with Reviewer 2, the words infested and infected have been changed to invaded throughout the text.

The conclusion could be strengthened by restating the main results and emphasizing their significance. The authors should explain the underlying factors driving variations in invasion levels among ecosystem types, such as human processes and disturbance levels. They should discuss the conservation implications, highlighting vulnerable ecosystems and proposing management strategies. It would be valuable to emphasize the broader contribution of the research to invasion dynamics and the importance of proactive management for ecosystem preservation.

Thank you very much Reviewer 2 for your excellent suggestions. Accordingly, we have revised the 5. Conclusion section, highlighting our main findings and their conservation significance. The following sentences have been added to chapter 5, Conclusion :

Line 569-572:

„It can be concluded that grasslands are the most threatened ecosystems by plant invasion in Hungary, as Asclepias s. and Robinia p.a. are increasingly covered in these areas. It would be important to find the best conservation management technologies (for instance, increase of grazing livestock) to reduce the spread of these plants.”  

Line 577-579:

„The results presented in our research can contribute to the conservation of biodi-versity, to understanding of the spread and geographical background of invasive plants, and to the development of appropriate conservation management methods.”

I kindly advise the authors to review the format of the table with utmost attention, taking into consideration the specific guidelines provided by the journal. It is recommended to ensure that the table structure, layout, and font styles align harmoniously with the journal's requirements.

We thank Reviewer 2 for his comments on the formatting of the table In all cases, the formatting of the table has been done according to the MDPI land manuscript template

Please consider these suggestions to improve the clarity and scientific rigor of your manuscript. Overall, I believe your research has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field of invasive plant management and conservation in Hungary.

Thank you for the opportunity to review your work. I appreciate your dedication to this important topic and look forward to seeing the revised version of your manuscript. I will look forward to seeing the published paper and congratulate the authors on the work done here.

Sincerely,

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors present a compelling study on invasive plants, focusing on five selected species across various ecosystems in Hungary over a ten-year period (2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018). By utilizing GIS, they effectively integrate information from diverse Hungary national datasets to demonstrate that invasions, a significant contemporary threat, are influenced by habitat types. Notably, the selected species are among the worst invasive plants globally, making the study likely to captivate a wide audience.

The manuscript is well-structured, with clear objectives, appropriate methodology, and thorough results and discussions. The authors exhibit impressive skills in GIS utilization, enhancing the credibility of their findings. To further improve the manuscript, the abstract should include relevant data and conclusions to provide a concise overview.

Regarding figures, the current quantity may be excessive, and some repetitive information can be avoided. Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 could potentially be omitted as the text adequately explains the data they represent.

Additionally, the inclusion of the appendix might be reconsidered, and if necessary, it should be placed at the end of the manuscript after the references.

Overall, I found the study enjoyable and believe that with some minor adjustments, the manuscript could be suitable for publication in a journal like Land.

For me English is ok but I'm not native so I don't have enough critreria to valuate that.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

 

Thank you very much for evaluating our manuscript and providing us the opportunity to submit again a revised version of the manuscript. We appreciate your positive and helpful comments.

 

We revised the manuscript by accepting all the changes suggested by reviewers. We copied the reviewer comments below and marked our responses in red.

“The authors present a compelling study on invasive plants, focusing on five selected species across various ecosystems in Hungary over a ten-year period (2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018). By utilizing GIS, they effectively integrate information from diverse Hungary national datasets to demonstrate that invasions, a significant contemporary threat, are influenced by habitat types. Notably, the selected species are among the worst invasive plants globally, making the study likely to captivate a wide audience.’

Thanks a lot for your kind opinion!

The manuscript is well-structured, with clear objectives, appropriate methodology, and thorough results and discussions. The authors exhibit impressive skills in GIS utilization, enhancing the credibility of their findings. To further improve the manuscript, the abstract should include relevant data and conclusions to provide a concise overview.

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions of on the redesign of the abstract. We agree that we need to better highlight the new scientific results and the novelty of our publication. Therefore, we modified the and totally rephrased our abstract:

New rewritten Abstract (Line 12-33):

„Modelling and analysis of spatio-temporal characteristics of plant invasion can help mapping and predicting the spread of invasive plants. The aim of our research was to investigate the spatio-temporal variability of five common invasive plant species (Ailanthus altissima, Asclepias syriaca, Elaeagnus angustifolia, Robinia pseudoacacia, Solidago spp.) within different land cover (ecosystem) type categories. The basis of the study was the National Geospatial Database of Invasive Plants (NGDIP) of Hungary, and the ecosystem types of the Ecosystem Map of Hungary (EMH). The GIS-based analysis of the detailed occurrence database of the invasive species (NGDIP) and the thematic land cover (ecosystem) type maps (EMH) examined allows us to answer the question in which habitat types the occurrence and distribution of the given invasive plant has stagnated, decreased or increased between 2006 and 2018. We developed a methodology with relevant data sources, and demonstrated invasion variation, which can be used for future management planning and invasion biology research. Our results show that Asclepias s. and Robinia p.a are increasingly threatening grasslands and are also spreading more intensively in complex cultivated areas. The occurrence of Ailanthus a. and Asclepias s. are declining in built up areas eventually due to increasingly extreme environmental conditions of cities or modified urban planning. The spread of Solidago spp. is increasingly common in wetlands, threatening the biodiversity of floodplain (riparian) vegetation.”

Regarding figures, the current quantity may be excessive, and some repetitive information can be avoided. Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 could potentially be omitted as the text adequately explains the data they represent.

Thank you for the suggestion, but we think that the figure 2-3-4- and 5are important to explain the phenomena described in the text, so we have kept them. We modified all of the titles of figures. We hope the meaning of our figures became more clear.

Additionally, the inclusion of the appendix might be reconsidered, and if necessary, it should be placed at the end of the manuscript after the references.

According to the Land MDPI Template we should not modify the place of Appendix

Overall, I found the study enjoyable and believe that with some minor adjustments, the manuscript could be suitable for publication in a journal like Land.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx