Distribution of the Riparian Salix Communities in and around Romanian Carpathians

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper mainly deals with the territory of Romania. Nevertheless, all data are based on field research or herbarium collections.

I believe that the work is valuable especially in the context of preserving biodiversity in nature.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your recent feedback on my work. Your positive comments were very much appreciated and have given me a great boost of confidence. Your insights and encouragement are invaluable to me. Thanks again for your time and consideration.

 

Best regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

·        The introduction epigraph is impeccable, it places the topic importance with an excellent bibliographical review.

·        As established, the introduction concludes with the objectives of the paper:

“This study provides an overview of riparian Salix (…) communities in and around the Romanian Carpathians, including their diversity, distribution, ecological importance, and conservation”.

Therefore, a fundamental aspect is to see to what extent these objectives are carried out, based on the author's work.

·        In line 88, the author refers to the UTM grid system. However, we are facing the repetition of a very common mistake among botanists, zoologists, and ecologists: the confusion of the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) cartographic system with the Military Grid Reference System (MGRS). The difference is subtle. (This is not the place to delve into the subject). Let's say that, in practice, the MGRS defines a system that provides a combination of letters that define a network of grids. Illustrating it with an example, if someone ask:

On what 10 x 10 km grid is the city of Cluj-Napoca?

The answer would be:

34T 69000 5180000 (UTM system)

34T FS 98 (MGRS)

So, the maps that appear in the paper are in MGRS, not in the UTM system. For more information see https://www.maptools.com/tutorials/mgrs/quick_guide

·        Lines 97 and 98 say “Vegetation in the study area was analyzed using phytosociological methods from the Braun-Blanquet School (Zurich-Montpellier)”. This is a method, despite having a floristic base, it is quantitative (the different coverage indices of the taxa) and hierarchical (the syntaxonomic hierarchy), please keep it in mind, since we will return to the issue later.

·        The subject of the EVI is a fundamental aspect of the paper, I cannot understand how it is addressed in such a brief way. I have had to read the paper by Dengler et al. 2023 to have full compression. It would be nice to spend a few more words on it.

Thus, I miss saying bioindication is a method that allows estimating site conditions from species composition, when measured values of environmental variables are not available.

Also, it would be convenient to comment that it has been used successfully, that the greatest advances in this topic are due to Heinz Ellenberg (honestly, I do not understand how an EVI paper omits Ellenberg in its References section).

Please enrich the 2nd paragraph on page 3 with these ideas.

·        As previously said, in line 126, "UTM" must be changed to "MGRS"

·        In lines 126 and 127 the first results begin to be presented: the maps. But the presentation is very concise, some interesting details are omitted that will later appear "ex novo" in the discussion. Please keep it in mind, as we will return to the issue later.

·        Lines 149-150 list the relevés of the communities of each species. I miss that it is clarified if they are disjoint sets. That is, if there is no relevé that contains two Salix species or on the contrary, the sum of these numbers (416) is the total relevés made. Please correct the omission of such a basic result as the number of relevés made.

·        Similarly, how many species are there? In those hundreds of relevés, is there much or little floristic richness? When the section on Conservation is addressed in the Discussion, this information must be on the table. Please correct this omission.

·        I would venture to suggest that you provide the relevés tables. I miss in some “modern” ecology journals, that spirit of the classic phytosociology journals of the Braun-Blanquet school (e.g. Tuexenia, etc.) that displayed huge pages to host the releves tables. Paradoxically, nowadays that there are electronic formats, these data are hidden. It is true that at the end it is commented:

Data Availability Statement: The national literature data are found according to references [25].

I read the reference number 25: Radoane, M., Rãdoane, N., & Dumitriu, D. 2003. Geomorphological evolution of longitudinal river profiles in the Carpathians. 395 Geomorphology, 50(4), 293-306.

I don't understand, could you please clarify this aspect?

With reference to Figure 7, we have to say, with great regret, that it is the weakest part of the job. I understand that a graphic that is very good on the screen loses its configuration when it is laid out, that has happened to all of us. But I think that presenting the main species in a block diagram, built by text boxes, is inadvisable. I don't mean to hurt, but I am obligated to state the obvious:

The first row of text box is unintelligible. e.g. What does “Salix purpurea & S. …” mean?

There are text boxes covering the text behind

There are cases in which, except for the detail of the order in which it is arranged and starting with a capital letter (or not), it is confusing to differentiate between a generic name and a specific epithet.

The arrows should also be mentioned. What do they indicate? A graph or a table in a paper should be completely self-explanatory, but the bare legend of the figure does not indicate anything.

·        It can be argued that the formatting errors are not so serious since the list of species is shown in lines 178-182; 189-193; 197-199 and 216-223 of the Discussion. But this is redundant. If this information is detailed in the discussion… what is Figure 7 for?

·        Although the previous comments refer to format issues regarding Figure 7; the following refer to more substantial issues, of the aforementioned figure and its correlates in the Discussion.

As already stated, the phytosociological methods from the Braun-Blanquet School (Zurich-Montpellier) is a hierarchical method where the communities thus defined are included in equivalence classes, which are called syntaxa. That in figure 7 and in the Discussion on plant communities no syntax is mentioned is to vitiate the methods from the Braun-Blanquet School. Please indicate which sitaxa correspond to the "communities" mentioned. (Another way to fix it is by providing the relevés tables as supplementary material and indicating the syntaxa there and in text referring to said annex).

·        As has already been said, the phytosociological method from the Braun-Blanquet School (Zurich-Montpellier) is a quantitative method, in such a way that it not only indicates the presence of a species in a Pflanzengemeinschaft,but also indicates its "weight" in it. Therefore, listing the companion species in alphabetical order (and not by fidelity to the parent species) is another vitiate of the methods from the Braun-Blanquet School. Please order the companion species from highest to lowest fidelity to the master species. (Another way to fix it is by providing the relevés tables as supplementary material and indicating the coverage indices of the taxa and in text referring to said annex).

·        What is said in the Discussion must emerge from the results. In this sense, the treatment of the maps in the Results section is very concise (“we compiled distribution maps for each of the four Salix species studied (figure 2 -6)”, lines 126-127)). Later in the Discussion it says “In this regard, distribution maps clearly demonstrate a wide range of locations where willow species are found., lines 239-240), but that reasoning should be entered in Results not in Discussion. In a statement that says “we compiled distribution maps for each of the four Salix species studied (figure 2 -6), note the wide range of locations where willow species are found”, or something similar.

·        In line 269-271, another case identical to the previous one occurs, it says “According to distribution maps, there is a significant opportunity to apply the concept of creating connected riparian community corridors and enhancing habitat connectivity in the study area”. This must be anticipated in Results, adding to the commentary of the maps (126-127) a statement that says "... note that this wide chorology connects many different regions of the study area"… or something similar.

·        A lot of space is dedicated to the section 4.2 Conservation of discussion, but its correlate in Results are two comments regarding the maps... which initially go to Discussion. The bibliography cited in this section is very pertinent and very well placed. But the almost absence of a correlate in Results leaves the heading very weak.

For the sake of enriching the epigraph, one could talk about biodiversity. For example, how many species are there in the sample communities? How many of them are included in the Cartea Roşie [Dihoru G. & G. Negrean. 2009. Letter Roşie to Plantelor Vasculare din România. Edited by Academiei Romane. Bucureşti] or other red list? How many alien species are there? Which of these can be dangerous, according to the existing bibliography? What is the syntaxonomic diversity?... What are the present syntaxa? What is the dissimilarity between the different types of plant communities studied (syntaxa), i.e. the β-diversity?

By displaying the answers to these questions in Results and commenting on them, section 4.2 can raise its game.

·        On line 225 there is a radical and abrupt change. Perhaps an introductory sentence of the type “Next we are going to review the states of the communities studied, according to…”. Or something similar.

·        At the end, in the Conclusions, the author recovers the brilliance of the Introduction. Impeccable.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review my manuscript. Your comments and feedback have been invaluable in improving the quality of the work. I appreciate your thoroughness and attention to detail, and I am grateful for the constructive criticism that you have provided. I have taken your comments into consideration and have made several revisions to the manuscript. I have included additional details, addressed some overlooked issues, and excluded some less happy parts. I believe that these changes have significantly improved the manuscript, and I hope that you will agree. If there are any further concerns or issues that you feel need to be addressed, please do not hesitate to let me know. I am committed to producing the best possible work, and I am open to any suggestions or criticisms that will help me achieve that goal. Once again, I would like to express my gratitude for your time and effort in reviewing my manuscript. Your expertise and insights have been immensely helpful, and I look forward to hearing your final thoughts on the revised version of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article is an overview of four riparian communities of Salix (S. alba, S. fragilis, S. purpurea and S. triandra) in and around the Romanian Carpathians. Various aspects of these communities are concluded (distribution, ecological importance, and conservation).  The number of bibliographical references and herbarium specimens reviewed is significant. However, not always the topics analyzed in the discussion are directly based / deduced from the experimental design or from the data generated in the results section. The methodology should be improved.

I include some more specific aspects below:

Line 26: "Riparian communities are communities...". Please, rewrite in order to avoid using the same word [communities] in the same sentence and so close together.

 

Lines 42-43: "The genus Salix consists of species that occupy different ecological environments and can be broadly classified into two groups: those found near water bodies (riparian or alluvial) and those in wetland habitats [13]." The Salix communities occurring exclusively in snowbeds (referred to below, lines 66-68), to which of these two previous groups would they correspond?

 

Line 103 "Vegetation data were obtained from our own database but also from the literature..." It would be convenient to indicate which are the oldest references considered in the bibliographical references used, since among the species observed in these communities are cited (see figure 7) alien species such as Amorpha fruticosa, Rudbeckia laciniata...  for which a relatively recent expansion in Romania is assumed. In this context, perhaps the period of time considered may be relevant in the interpretation of the results.

Line 109: "We used Microsoft Excel [34] and Past [35] to create the graphs.". I assume that more than to create graphs, they were used to treat data, perform analysis, etc... please, explain all this more adequately.

 

FIgures, 3, 4, 5 and 6: The distribution maps have indicated (top right) a temperature scale. Is this temperature the annual average? Why this and not another type of information (altitude, rivers, etc...)? 

 

Figure 7 needs a little more explanation in the text and also the caption of this figure should be more informative.

 

Line 154: "4. Discussion", not "4. Discussions"

 

Lines 158-159 "Our study high lights the importance of these communities in maintaining biodiversity and ecological balance in various habitats..." This cannot be obviously concluded from the results presented.

The same for some of the following paragraphs, rather than discussing results, the value of the number of herbarium materials reviewed is indicated, or the relevance of the distribution maps, which is undoubtedly relevant, but this is a discussion section, the author should focus more on the results obtained and analize and discuss them.

 

The "4.2 Conservation section", although interesting, is perhaps too broad and general and is not directly related to the data generated and analyzed in the results section.

 

Author Response

We would like to express my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review my manuscript and for providing valuable feedback that helped us enhance its quality. We carefully considered all of your comments and suggestions and have made the necessary changes to the revised version of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

 I have not more comments. After the correction the manuscript is acceptable

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I am deeply grateful for all the comments that have been made on this manuscript, as they have greatly improved it. Thank you!

All the best,

Claudia Bita-Nicolae

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript represents a significant improvement over the first version. Certainly it has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Diversity.

Here are some minor corrections and comments:

Line 253: "concluded by Saatkamp et al [55]" instead of "concluded Saatkamp et al [55]" 

Lines 261-262: " and Acer campestre" instead of ", Acer campestre"

Line 266: "and the common" instead of "a and the common"

Line 271: "Salicetalia" instead of "Salicetealia"

Lines 271-272 "all four communities" is written twice in the same sentence, please correct

Line 318: "Salicetalia" instead of "Salicetetalia"

Lines 318-329: provide some or some references, if possible. I agree with the author, an ecological relevance does not imply a high number of species.

Line 325: "for ornament" instead of "for decoration"

Suppl. file: "Cannabis sativa" instead of "Cannabis sativa ssp.spontanea", in fact I have been not able to find this name validly published. 

Suppl. file: "Agropyron caninum," remove the comma

Suppl. file: "Agrostis stolonifera. " remove point

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

I am most grateful for all the comments that have been made on this manuscript including these last ones as they have improved it greatly. I have corrected absolutely all the errors that appeared. Thank you!

Best wishes,

Claudia Nicolae

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf