Forest Disturbances Threatening Cypripedium calceolus Populations Can Improve Its Habitat Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for your manuscript, which I have found interesting. However, some parts could be significantly improved.

Statistical analyses

The methodology of your statistical analyses is very poorly described. It is only known, that ANOVA was used and which factors were tested. But I have doubts, if ANOVA test was appropriate in your case. Your tested groups seem to differ significantly in the number of populations per group. It could be better to use non-parametric methods or GLM for such a data.

The results could be better presented in a simple table showing ANOVA results. It would be very good to present clearly the number of tested populations per group in the table, tested factors, and results. The information is scattered in the text at the moment.

 

Discussion

 

The final part of the Discussion (from the line 400) is not well linked to the paper results. The paper presents the ideas how to manage forests with the presence of Cypripedium calceolus, but these methods were not tested in the paper and it is not clear if they are extracted from some other published. I recommend to remove the Table 5 and to reduce this part of the Discussion. I would focus only on discussion of possible management approaches in a direct link to the paper results.

 

Figures

 

Figures are in general not very well presented. At first the resolution could be improved. At second the legen is difficult to read. It has to be improved significantly. I recommend to use only shor abbreviations with max. 2 letters per category and to enlarge the legend pallette.

 

Minor comments

 

l. 93 I recommend to add term "Habitats Directive" into brackets to identify more clearly mentioned directive.

l. 277-280 This text is more relevant for Discussion. It should be removed from Results.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviever, 

Thank you for the kind review of our manuscript. We appreciate your comments very much. Your review has improved our manuscript significantly. Thanks again.

Please see the atatchment for our answers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors provide an interesting analysis of the distribution of an important orchid species, from a global conservation perspective.  They have used a variety of data sources to examine habitats where the orchid occurs and the impacts of forest managment on the species.  Most importantly, their work has resulted in possible managment options that would enable the species to persist in areas where forest managment is required or suggested.  I found no major issues with the manuscript and suggest several changes in the text that are mostly related to language.  See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviever, 

Thank you for the kind review of our manuscript. We appreciate your comments very much. Your review has improved our manuscript significantly. Thanks again.

Please see the atatchment for our answers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

thank you very much for the quick revsion of your manuscript. I accept your explanation concerning the changes in the Discussion section. Your manuscript can be accepted in a present form.