Quercus rotundifolia Lam. Woodlands of the Southwestern Iberian Peninsula
, Ana Cano-Ortiz 3, Carmelo Maria Musarella 4, Sara del Río 5, Mauro Raposo 6, José Carlos Piñar Fuentes 3 and Carlos Pinto Gomes 6Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article, based on statistical analysis, provides valuable and precise informations on the floristic structure, ecology and biogeography of the Quercus rotundifolia vegetation that is present in the southwestern of the Iberian Peninsula.
Nethertheless, the manuscript lacks precision on certain methodological aspects and a lack of contextualisation of the discussion in relation to biogeographical aspects and nature conservation. Indeed, in relation to the aims described in the abstract and the introduction, the ecological data are not sufficiently studied. Statistical analyses based on the cross-referencing of phytosociological and ecological data (ellenberg or worldclim) are necessary to fulfil this aim.
This is my comments.
Introduction
The figure corresponds to a result: it should therefore be placed in this part. Moreover, for this figure, the authors should specify the number of phytosociological relevés.
On the other hand, a map showing the different bioclimatic and biogeographic areas with the location of the phytosociological relevés used would allow to understand the distribution of Quercus rotundifolia vegetation in the sectors studied.
Method
The method part needs to be further developed and restructured. The method could be presented in three steps: (1) Presentation of the dataset (2) nomenclatures used (3) data analysis. I suggest specifying the sources of the phytosociological relevés (by who and possibly in which database they have been integrated). Concerning the list of species and their nomenclature, I think it is important to specify in which cases you have retained subspecies and in which cases you have merged subspecies at the species level.
It is not specified how the authors proceeded to interpret and link the clusters to associations (according to the literature?, according to their personal experiences?). Table 1 does not provide additional information, but refers to the Braun-Blanquet publication [24]: it can be deleted.
As for the syntaxonomic nomenclature, in particular for the description of the new association, the authors did not mention the reference system used (Theurillat et al. 2021?).
Ecological data are not sufficiently exploited. I am thinking in particular of the Worlclim bioclimatic data or the ellenberg coefficients which can be used to discriminate vegetation. These data would help to confirm the descriptions of vegetation given by the authors in the results section.
L89-90: Why 'The Braun-Blanquet's abundance-dominance indexes were transformed according to Van der Maarel [21]'? Explain more precisely this choice.
Results and discussion
I will rename part 3.1 Classification of southwestern Iberian Peninsula holm oak communities.
As specified in the abstract « In this paper we study the floristic, ecological and biogeographical differences of the edaphoxerophilous holm oak woodlands of the southwestern Iberian Peninsula, included in the Querco rotundifoliae-Oleenion sylvestris suballiance. » The results could be supplemented by a section on bioclimatic aspects. By correlating the lists of species of each vegetation type with ecological data, this would further support the descriptions of vegetation units and allow better definition of environmental gradients. These aspects should also be discussed.
In order to better identify floristic differences between the different plant associations in Table 2, it would be relevant to categorise species by ecology or biogeography. It needs to add the number of surveys in each column of the table and add a column for the frequency of total occurrence of the species in the dataset.
The "Syntaxonomical scheme" section should be placed in the results as it is a synthesis of the results obtained from the classification and analysis of ecological data.
Minor comments that should be addressed
Standardize : phytosociological relevés or samples in all the text
L 23 : replace surfaces by areas
L70 : replace thermophile by thermophilous
L 82 : replace "phytosociologycal method" by phytosociological
L 98 : replace « the vegetal association » by « the plant association »
L114-115 : Group A, encompasses samples contained within the silicicolous association
L173 : replace acidophilic to acidic
L211 : replace Localities of the relevés by « Location of the relevés »
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is informative and seem coherent with its goal to deepen the knowledge of the holm oak woodlands of the southwestern Iberian Peninsula. The Authors propose a new plant community and they describe it according to the phytosociological approach. They explore its ecology and composition in comparison with the other holm oak woodlands.
This manuscript has a potential to be accepted, but some important points have to be clarified and I have some observations and suggestions:
The paper needs to be scanned for spelling errors, I suggest more attention to the text.
I feel the paper would benefit from a language check (even if I am myself a non-native English speaking person).
The introduction section explain well the original aim of the paper, but it is a bit dispersive and sometimes with too much notionism. Similar considerations apply to the methods. I think, for example, that the definition of association is unnecessary. At this level I think it could be considered implied.
The descriptions of the holm oak communities (subsection 3.2) are very detailed from floristic, ecological and dynamic point of view, but I have some remarks. Many syntaxa, directly or undirectly involved, are mentioned in the text but complete names are not available. The full names of the syntaxa mentioned in the paper, completed with Authors and date, should be included, at least once. I suggest to add the list of the syntaxa not quoted in the syntaxonomic scheme at the end of the paper.
In my opinion some lists of species belonging to different syntaxa reported in the text are too long, so the text becomes heavy to read.
The sigmeta are well described but I suggest a higher accuracy, for example adding the names of the series. They are hinted in the manuscript but I think il could be more explicit and with more precision.
The proposal of a new syntaxon at the association level seems not to be supported by an adequate nomenclatural accuracy. According to the International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature (Theurillat et al., 2020) the definition of the holotype is mandatory and, as specified in art. 18 “The holotype is an element of the original diagnosis indicated as the nomenclatural type by the author(s)”. So, the formal selection of the holotypus from the relevés of table 3 has to be done and clearly specified in the text and (as usual) in the label of table 3.
The synoptic table highlight the role of different contingents of species in the communities involved in the comparison. According to the importance of the definition of a new syntaxon, I suggest to add the chorological spectra of the 4 associations. The distinctiveness of the 4 syntaxa of the suballiance is well analyzed, but I think this addition could better specify their geobotanical context.
The syntaxonomical scheme follows the bibliographic references 10, 11, 12, 13, but the nomenclaure doesn’t fit with the updated European hierarchical floristic classification system (Mucina et al., 2016). I suggest to make the name of the higher syntaxa in accordance with it.
Other specific comments
Page 2, line 73: Typing error: the comma between subject and verb must be deleted
Page 3, line 91-92: The reference to associations A, B, C and D of table 2 is not consistent with the table, where they are called association 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Page 4, line 103: Table 1 is redundant: the Braun–Blanquet abundance-dominance indexes are well known and, correctly, in the text there is the bibliographic reference (24): I think this could be enough.
Page 17, line 389-390: the name of the Authors not in italic format
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have reviewed all the files. The authors corrected the files very well and improved the text significantly. Also, the article can be accept in this form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your consideration.
On behalf of the authors
Our best regards
Ricardo Quinto-Canas
University of the Algarve, Portugal
Reviewer 2 Report
Only 2 little typing errors:
Line 298 .Et to be changed in .et
Line 375 .In to be changed in .in
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your consideration. We corrected the mistakes in the main text.
On behalf of the authors
Our best regards
Ricardo Quinto-Canas
University of the Algarve, Portugal
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
