Botany Teaching–Learning Proposal Using the Phytosociological Method for University Students’ Study of the Diversity and Conservation of Forest Ecosystems for University Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Dr. Cano-Ortiz and co-authors,

Your work addresses a highly pertinent and original topic, and the focus on both research and education in ecosystem diversity is commendable.

That being said, I would like to offer some constructive feedback. While your research is undoubtedly significant, the article itself would benefit from a more refined structure and a more accessible style of writing. In several places, the text feels overly dense, and I believe the depth of content might overwhelm readers. The self-referencing could also be minimized, as it tends to detract from the objectivity and flow of the work. Additionally, merging or simplifying certain phases of your proposed methodology would make the article more approachable and easier to follow.

I also encourage you to strike a balance between academic rigor and accessibility to non-specialist readers. By simplifying the language and clarifying the methodology, your work could appeal to a broader audience while maintaining its scholarly value.

Further comments:

The paper suggests that this “model” can be universally applied in educational contexts to foster a deeper understanding of biodiversity and environmental conservation. Here, the authors propose research and teaching cumulative “process” or “method”, NOT a “model”! The “model” they use is the study area, which is quite rich in endemism and particular botanical case-study. Thus, this terminology should be revised across the entire document. Also, they do not propose a “nine phase model”, they propose a sequential methodology with nine steps, which I found redundant in terms of phases, better called steps, and can be resumed or merged. The authors show to be prolific phytosociologists, but they cannot forget that for teachers and students it’s a hard narrative, difficult to follow and digest! So, it could be better to simplify the number of steps of their method, as for example:

Step 1: Study area characterization (Including Biogeography and Bioclimatology)

Step 2: Literature review and update

Step 3: Phytosociological approach and Treatment (includes data transformation, Van der Maarel, and all downstream statistical treatment, as a single pipeline)

Step 4: Data analysis (Tables, characteristic species etc…)

In this sense the abstract needs a full review and rewriting since it appears quite confuse, disordered and lacking important information.

Generally, the authors should temper their affirmations as they assume they “establish” methods, while they only “propose” them… There are a lot of examples throughout the text.

The authors should also avoid forced self-citation or at least citing “friendly” and their ring of common co-authors! For example, I found forced and ring-related self-citation, the following: 2,3,6,70. The authors should retract these citations and provide tailored ones related with the work reality.

Jargon like “catenary” and "geosigmetum" is to much specific, and maby not be understood by common reader! Please avoid such terminology or explain it in detail.

The importance of the study area and its high diversity is repeated across the text innumerous times.

The major strength and originality of this work it’s the intention on using vegetation models and geobotanical perspectives to increase plant awareness and promote landscape interpretation and valuing by students. This is not clear until the end of the Introduction, which is not very crisp in terms of literature review in pedagogic sciences. The authors should develop it better, with more citations and works related with didatics and pedagogical studies on natural sciences.

As for balancing strengths and weaknesses:

The subject matter is timely, addressing critical issues in biodiversity conservation and the authors have demonstrated comprehensive knowledge of the study area, and their proposal for utilizing biosphere reserves as educational laboratories is innovative and valuable. Here the methodology provides students with practical, field-based experiences that are often lacking in higher education programs. However, the writing suffers from occasional lapses in clarity, particularly in the explanation of certain methodological steps. While the framework presented is comprehensive, the paper would benefit from a clearer articulation of how this model is universally applicable, rather than specific to the Dominican Republic. Also, some sections appear redundant, such as the repeated emphasis on biogeography, which detracts from the overall flow of the article.

In summary, this manuscript addresses important educational gaps and provides a well-structured framework for enhancing research skills. However, it requires substantial editorial revisions to enhance its readability and engagement. 

Despite these recommendations, I believe your article makes a meaningful and original contribution to the field. It deserves publication, and I would recommend this paper for publication after major revisions, language and structural editing and reduction of self-citations. Therefore, with some refinement, it could serve as a valuable resource for researchers and educators alike.

Thank you for your attention to these suggestions, and I look forward to seeing a refined version of this manuscript.

 Best regards,

Carlos Vila-Viçosa

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English would benefit from a native-speaker review.

Author Response

Dear Dr. Cano-Ortiz and co-authors,

Your work addresses a highly pertinent and original topic, and the focus on both research and education in ecosystem diversity is commendable.

That being said, I would like to offer some constructive feedback. While your research is undoubtedly significant, the article itself would benefit from a more refined structure and a more accessible style of writing. In several places, the text feels overly dense, and I believe the depth of content might overwhelm readers. The self-referencing could also be minimized, as it tends to detract from the objectivity and flow of the work. Additionally, merging or simplifying certain phases of your proposed methodology would make the article more approachable and easier to follow.

I also encourage you to strike a balance between academic rigor and accessibility to non-specialist readers. By simplifying the language and clarifying the methodology, your work could appeal to a broader audience while maintaining its scholarly value.

REPLY

Note: When the text was modified with the inclusion of new information and with the English corrections, the new text presents new lines.

However, all corrections are in red and with the reviewer suggesting it in the margin as Reviewer 1, 2, 3.

Dear reviewer, we sincerely thank you for your comments, and we have made the suggested corrections that have helped us to improve the text.

The summary and the text have been modified, made less dense, the paragraphs have been shortened. Self-references have been eliminated, leaving the minimum. The methodology has been modified to make it more fluid, which has been clarified, in the hope that the article will be attractive to readers.

The title has been modified to make it more understandable with respect to the abstract and the text.

Further comments:

The paper suggests that this “model” can be universally applied in educational contexts to foster a deeper understanding of biodiversity and environmental conservation. Here, the authors propose research and teaching cumulative “process” or “method”, NOT a “model”! The “model” they use is the study area, which is quite rich in endemism and particular botanical case-study. Thus, this terminology should be revised across the entire document. Also, they do not propose a “nine phase model”, they propose a sequential methodology with nine steps, which I found redundant in terms of phases, better called steps, and can be resumed or merged. The authors show to be prolific phytosociologists, but they cannot forget that for teachers and students it’s a hard narrative, difficult to follow and digest! So, it could be better to simplify the number of steps of their method, as for example:

Step 1: Study area characterization (Including Biogeography and Bioclimatology)

Step 2: Literature review and update

Step 3: Phytosociological approach and Treatment (includes data transformation, Van der Maarel, and all downstream statistical treatment, as a single pipeline)

Step 4: Data analysis (Tables, characteristic species etc…)

REPLY

We are very grateful for your comment, because it is indeed better to speak of the phytosociological method than of model, and taking into consideration your advice we have revised the whole text and replaced model by method, and we have merged the steps and propose four steps for the teaching of the phytosociological method.

In this sense the abstract needs a full review and rewriting since it appears quite confuse, disordered and lacking important information.

REPLY

The summary has been completely modified and restructured to make it more understandable.

Generally, the authors should temper their affirmations as they assume they “establish” methods, while they only “propose” them… There are a lot of examples throughout the text. The authors should also avoid forced self-citation or at least citing “friendly” and their ring of common co-authors! For example, I found forced and ring-related self-citation, the following: 2,3,6,70. The authors should retract these citations and provide tailored ones related with the work reality.

REPLY

The text has been extensively modified with new information. Of course we have eliminated the self-citations 2,3,6,70. Only the minimum necessary self-citations have been left. When incorporating new information we have added new quotations from other authors.

Jargon like “catenary” and "geosigmetum" is to much specific, and maby not be understood by common reader! Please avoid such terminology or explain it in detail.

REPLY

This terminology is not only referenced but also explained in the text.

The importance of the study area and its high diversity is repeated across the text innumerous times.

REPLY

The new wording is better structured

The major strength and originality of this work it’s the intention on using vegetation models and geobotanical perspectives to increase plant awareness and promote landscape interpretation and valuing by students. This is not clear until the end of the Introduction, which is not very crisp in terms of literature review in pedagogic sciences. The authors should develop it better, with more citations and works related with didatics and pedagogical studies on natural sciences.

REPLY

In response to your request, we have included new information and didactic and pedagogical quotations in the introduction.

As for balancing strengths and weaknesses:

The subject matter is timely, addressing critical issues in biodiversity conservation and the authors have demonstrated comprehensive knowledge of the study area, and their proposal for utilizing biosphere reserves as educational laboratories is innovative and valuable. Here the methodology provides students with practical, field-based experiences that are often lacking in higher education programs. However, the writing suffers from occasional lapses in clarity, particularly in the explanation of certain methodological steps. While the framework presented is comprehensive, the paper would benefit from a clearer articulation of how this model is universally applicable, rather than specific to the Dominican Republic. Also, some sections appear redundant, such as the repeated emphasis on biogeography, which detracts from the overall flow of the article.

In summary, this manuscript addresses important educational gaps and provides a well-structured framework for enhancing research skills. However, it requires substantial editorial revisions to enhance its readability and engagement. 

Despite these recommendations, I believe your article makes a meaningful and original contribution to the field. It deserves publication, and I would recommend this paper for publication after major revisions, language and structural editing and reduction of self-citations. Therefore, with some refinement, it could serve as a valuable resource for researchers and educators alike.

Thank you for your attention to these suggestions, and I look forward to seeing a refined version of this manuscript.

REPLY

Thank you for your comments on this study. In this work we combine phytosociological research with its teaching, so it is a hybrid research between phytosociology and education, which aims to train university students, future managers and teachers.

Indeed, the wording has been substantially improved, the methodological steps to be followed for teaching have been reduced. The educational model on this methodological teaching is applicable to any place on the planet, and this is what we state in the text.

Regarding the redundancy in some sections, there are two aspects in the teaching that are basic, bioclimatology and biogeography, essential issues in land use planning.

The summary, as mentioned above, has been rewritten and modified, adapting it better to the content of the text.

The text has been revised in English by a native expert.

Thank you for your suggestions and consideration

Kind regards

Eusebio

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed manuscript concerns the issue of proposal for research strategies in higher education for the study of the diversity and conservation of forest ecosystems. Here I have some doubts as to whether this manuscript is suitable for the journal Diversity. In my opinion, it is more suitable for a journal more focused on education and social sciences. I am not entirely convinced whether the manuscript fits into the theme of the special issue - I have read the information on the website of this issue and the published articles. I do not completely cross out the reviewed manuscript, but I have considerable doubts about it. I also have doubts as to whether the content of the manuscript corresponds to the title and the theses assumed by the authors. In my opinion, the authors should emphasize and highlight research strategies in higher education for the study of the diversity and conservation of forest ecosystems more. In its current form, the manuscript presents rather the results of research on diversity and conservation of forest ecosystems, and not strategies in higher education. Perhaps the authors should consider changing the title and remodeling the research hypotheses. I do not fully understand whether the manuscript is based on a literature review or on the authors' own research.

Overall, the manuscript has potential, but requires the authors to rethink and point in a specific direction .

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed manuscript concerns the issue of proposal for research strategies in higher education for the study of the diversity and conservation of forest ecosystems. Here I have some doubts as to whether this manuscript is suitable for the journal Diversity. In my opinion, it is more suitable for a journal more focused on education and social sciences. I am not entirely convinced whether the manuscript fits into the theme of the special issue - I have read the information on the website of this issue and the published articles. I do not completely cross out the reviewed manuscript, but I have considerable doubts about it. I also have doubts as to whether the content of the manuscript corresponds to the title and the theses assumed by the authors. In my opinion, the authors should emphasize and highlight research strategies in higher education for the study of the diversity and conservation of forest ecosystems more. In its current form, the manuscript presents rather the results of research on diversity and conservation of forest ecosystems, and not strategies in higher education. Perhaps the authors should consider changing the title and remodeling the research hypotheses. I do not fully understand whether the manuscript is based on a literature review or on the authors' own research.

Overall, the manuscript has potential, but requires the authors to rethink and point in a specific direction .

REPLY

 We sincerely appreciate your comments, and we understand your concern as to whether the subject matter fits the issue of the journal.

Diversity is an interdisciplinary journal, in our opinion this research fits perfectly in the journal, since it combines two fields of knowledge: botanical research on forest diversity and the teaching of phytosociological methodology for its study. With this study we intend to promote the teaching of research so that it can be applied and projected to society. Evidently, if good managers and teachers are trained, it will be easier to create social awareness and preserve areas of interest, as is the case of the island of Hispaniola, considered a hot spot for its high endemicity.

In response to your concern we have made a modification of the title to better connect with the content of the article, the summary is also modified and different corrections are made in the text, including new information. All this will facilitate a better understanding by potential readers.

The text has been revised in English by a native expert.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is a vegetation analysis of the Dominican Republic with some interesting data and analyses (although methods are somehow incomplete and outdated). It does not have a hypothesis and basis to develop and test for an “educational model”.  In fact, if all those steps to analyze the island’s vegetation are necessary to create “societal awareness" I can only see failure in that goal as it is very complicated and restricted to experts in the field.

Authors should remove completely the educational aspect and concentrate on the vegetation analysis. If authors intend to develop an “educational model” please focus on this topic and explore the respective literature, methods, practical and theorical aspects of education.

As authors focus on vegetation, please explore also more modern vegetation analyses methods such as the ones developed by Chao and others. Some examples follow:

1. Chao, A.; Jost, L. Coverage-Based Rarefaction and Extrapolation: Standardizing Samples by Completeness Rather than Size. Ecology 93, 2533–2547.

2. Chao, A.; Ricotta, C. Quantifying Evenness and Linking It to Diversity, Beta Diversity, and Similarity. Ecology 2019, 100, doi:10.1002/ecy.2852.

3. Chao, A.; Colwell, R.K.; Gotelli, N.J.; Thorn, S. Proportional Mixture of Two Rarefaction/Extrapolation Curves to Forecast Biodiversity Changes under Landscape Transformation. Ecol Lett 2019, 22, 1913–1922, doi:10.1111/ele.13322.

4. Chao, A.; Chiu, C. Species Richness: Estimation and Comparison. In Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online; Balakrishnan, N., Colton, T., Everitt, B., Piegorsch, W., Ruggeri, F., Teugels, J.L., Eds.; Wiley, 2016; pp. 1–26 ISBN 978-1-118-44511-2.

5. Thorn, S.; Chao, A.; Bernhardt‐Römermann, M.; Chen, Y.; Georgiev, K.B.; Heibl, C.; Müller, J.; Schäfer, H.; Bässler, C. Rare Species, Functional Groups, and Evolutionary Lineages Drive Successional Trajectories in Disturbed Forests. Ecology 2020, 101, doi:10.1002/ecy.2949.

6. Chao, A.; Kubota, Y.; Zelený, D.; Chiu, C.; Li, C.; Kusumoto, B.; Yasuhara, M.; Thorn, S.; Wei, C.; Costello, M.J.; et al. Quantifying Sample Completeness and Comparing Diversities among Assemblages. Ecological Research 2020, 35, 292–314, doi:10.1111/1440-1703.12102.

7. Rother, D.C.; Liboni, A.P.; Magnago, L.F.S.; Chao, A.; Chazdon, R.L.; Rodrigues, R.R. Ecological Restoration Increases Conservation of Taxonomic and Functional Beta Diversity of Woody Plants in a Tropical Fragmented Landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 2019, 451, 117538, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117538.

8. Zheng, J.; Arif, M.; Zhang, S.; Yuan, Z.; Zhang, L.; Dong, Z.; Tan, X.; Charles, W.; Li, C. The Convergence of Species Composition along the Drawdown Zone of the Three Gorges Dam Reservoir, China: Implications for Restoration. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2021, 28, 42609–42621, doi:10.1007/s11356-021-13774-0.

 

 

Abstract – it needs to be completed rewritten as is only mentioned a sequence of activities proposed without any background and contextualization of why the topic is important, what has been done on the topic in the past and elsewhere, why this approach is an improvement, and what are the lessons learned from the application of the “new” method.

Introduction – It starts with very disconnected sentences (e.g. 34 – 50) that could eventually make sense together but were not well linked: “species distribution models” …”will allow the recovery of deteriorated forests” - where is the connection here? Models will recover forests?; “in all developing countries” why in these countries? And not elsewhere? These are just a few examples but basically all sentences are disconnected. Also, the teaching aspect that is central to the manuscript is not contextualized.

Define and reference “Index of endemism”.

L51-52 – include citations.

L 53 – “social awareness to achieve habitat conservation” – it is too vague. Contextualize and explain how “social awareness” will allow for better habitat conservation and how its lack has been a roadblock for efficient conservation

 

L54 – Up to this point is not real “model” being described so it is vague, and sentence refers to something not defined.

L56-58 – “This vision of conservation that society acquires through the educational system can be obtained through the use of natural spaces that act as research laboratories.” Finally authors mentioned probably the basis for their thinking although it is lost in this paragraph. Something like that should be used to construct the logic for this this manuscript – authors have not managed to connect well high diversity and degradation with a proposed educational model.

L72-74 – Paragraph is completely disconnected to the rest of the section. Also, “free” space is awkward.

L75-79 – flexibility in relation to what? The paragraph is quite simplistic at least.

L86-97 – Finally some contextualization that should be used since the beginning of the Introduction.                             

L120-124 – It is not clear if the whole island is the study area and its vegetation was categorized by richness. As authors clarify on that topic, fully explain how this data was collected and analyzed.

Figure 1 – it needs to be fixed for several problems such as: scale, names incomplete, cardinal orientation, etc.

L150-171 – Most of the information here belongs to other sections as they are not methods. Relocate.

Figure 5 I The dendrogram lacks information. How were the groups differentiated? Based on the level of A1 and A2 on the x scale, there should also be groups B1 and B2. What the different colors stand for?

Figure 6 – It should be better described (what are the letters etc) and explained its meaning in captions.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although in general the English is reasonable there are several words and sentences that are awkwardly written. The services of a native or very fluent editor would be beneficial.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is a vegetation analysis of the Dominican Republic with some interesting data and analyses (although methods are somehow incomplete and outdated). It does not have a hypothesis and basis to develop and test for an “educational model”.  In fact, if all those steps to analyze the island’s vegetation are necessary to create “societal awareness" I can only see failure in that goal as it is very complicated and restricted to experts in the field.

Authors should remove completely the educational aspect and concentrate on the vegetation analysis. If authors intend to develop an “educational model” please focus on this topic and explore the respective literature, methods, practical and theorical aspects of education.

As authors focus on vegetation, please explore also more modern vegetation analyses methods such as the ones developed by Chao and others. Some examples follow:

REPLY

We welcome your comments. The above-mentioned educational model tries to establish step-by-step guidelines for university teaching. We try to teach the phytosociological method whose final objective is the same as the ecological one, which apparently may seem complex, but really is not so complex.

To avoid uncertainty we have modified the title, so that readers will know exactly what they will find in the text.

Evidently, social awareness is not acquired by knowing the research method, but trained university students, who will teach in universities and educational centers of lower levels, will be able to generate social awareness, for which it is necessary to stimulate the love of knowledge.

I repeat, keep in mind that this article is not strictly educational, but it is a hybrid study, based on the knowledge of the vegetation of an area of interest for its high botanical-ecological values, which lends itself to a proposal of how to approach the teaching of Botany. With this study we try to ensure that the research really reaches society, and has applicability. It is clear that you cannot teach what you do not know, so research and teaching must go hand in hand.

In response to your suggestions we include information on alpha and beta diversity and include references to Chao et al.

Abstract – it needs to be completed rewritten as is only mentioned a sequence of activities proposed without any background and contextualization of why the topic is important, what has been done on the topic in the past and elsewhere, why this approach is an improvement, and what are the lessons learned from the application of the “new” method.

Introduction – It starts with very disconnected sentences (e.g. 34 – 50) that could eventually make sense together but were not well linked: “species distribution models” …”will allow the recovery of deteriorated forests” - where is the connection here? Models will recover forests?; “in all developing countries” why in these countries? And not elsewhere? These are just a few examples but basically all sentences are disconnected. Also, the teaching aspect that is central to the manuscript is not contextualized.

Define and reference “Index of endemism”.

L51-52 – include citations.

REPLY

Note: When the text was modified with the inclusion of new information and with the English corrections, the new text presents new lines.

However, all corrections are in red and with the reviewer suggesting it in the margin as Reviewer 1, 2, 3.

The abstract has been modified

L 53 – “social awareness to achieve habitat conservation” – it is too vague. Contextualize and explain how “social awareness” will allow for better habitat conservation and how its lack has been a roadblock for efficient conservation

 REPLY

Social awareness is justified through teachers who have acquired sufficient training to do so.

L54 – Up to this point is not real “model” being described so it is vague, and sentence refers to something not defined.

REPLY

There are changes in the text

L56-58 – “This vision of conservation that society acquires through the educational system can be obtained through the use of natural spaces that act as research laboratories.” Finally authors mentioned probably the basis for their thinking although it is lost in this paragraph. Something like that should be used to construct the logic for this this manuscript – authors have not managed to connect well high diversity and degradation with a proposed educational model.

REPLY

New text is included explaining the practical learning of the physotociological method

L72-74 – Paragraph is completely disconnected to the rest of the section. Also, “free” space is awkward.

 REPLY

L75-79 – flexibility in relation to what? The paragraph is quite simplistic at least.

REPLY

New information is included to clarify the sentence

L86-97 – Finally some contextualization that should be used since the beginning of the Introduction.          

REPLY

Thank you, I hope that now all the text is well contextualized.

L120-124 – It is not clear if the whole island is the study area and its vegetation was categorized by richness. As authors clarify on that topic, fully explain how this data was collected and analyzed.

REPLY

We have included new text and a new reference

Figure 1 – it needs to be fixed for several problems such as: scale, names incomplete, cardinal orientation, etc.

REPLY

We have replaced figure 1 with another figure and have completed the information

L150-171 – Most of the information here belongs to other sections as they are not methods. Relocate.

REPLY

This text has been included in the discussion section.

Figure 5 I The dendrogram lacks information. How were the groups differentiated? Based on the level of A1 and A2 on the x scale, there should also be groups B1 and B2. What the different colors stand for?

REPLY

We have corrected figure 5 by adding the subgroups B1 and B2, information is included at the bottom of the figure and between lines 358 and 373 the subgroups A and B are explained.

Figure 6 – It should be better described (what are the letters etc) and explained its meaning in captions.

REPLY

The letters are described and their meaning explained at the bottom of figure 6.

 Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although in general the English is reasonable there are several words and sentences that are awkwardly written. The services of a native or very fluent editor would be beneficial.

English has been reviewed by a native expert

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors have taken into account the recommendations made by the reviewer. They have organized the content of the manuscript and added missing information. My comment concerns the title of the manuscript, which is in Spanish and not English. After this minor correction, the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The title of the manuscript is in Spanish and not English. 

Author Response

 

REVISOR 2

The Authors have taken into account the recommendations made by the reviewer. They have organized the content of the manuscript and added missing information. My comment concerns the title of the manuscript, which is in Spanish and not English. After this minor correction, the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The title of the manuscript is in Spanish and not English.

 

REPLY

Dear reviewer, we sincerely appreciate your comment, and we apologize for the error, surely when modifying the title in previous revisions we forgot to translate it into English. The title has been translated, but we have also added “FOR UNIVERSITY STUDENTS”, to clarify to reviewer 3 that this is not a popular article, but is intended for young university students.

The latest corrections can be found in the article with the purple color

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have accepted the minor suggestions but the main issues were completely ignored.

There is no single mentioning about vegetation methods developed in the last 50 years or so.

There is not mentioning about how this "teaching" method compares to any other already been developed anywhere in the world. What is the innovation, the improvement in relation to others?

Vegetation analysis presented are very complex to any person but researchers or ecology students. General public will never take advantage of it as it demands a lot of intermediate to advance understanding of statistics and taxonomy.

Statistics and other methods are poorly explained and presented, e.g. groups in dendrograms are shown without any criteria to define the cut off level.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is acceptable.

Author Response

REVISOR 3

Authors have accepted the minor suggestions but the main issues were completely ignored.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, we appreciate your comments and apologize for the inconvenience.

We have included different paragraphs in response to your suggestions.

All corrections are marked in purple in the text.

There is no single mentioning about vegetation methods developed in the last 50 years or so.

REPLY

We include information on the two main methods for the study of vegetation, making in discussion a comparative analysis on coincidences and differences between both methods, with the inclusion of new references.

In material and methods we name the two great methodologies, with articles on vegetation in the Dominican Republic using the ecological method, references 45-49 and 51-58.

In teaching methodology we name the two main methods being used for teaching vegetation

There is not mentioning about how this "teaching" method compares to any other already been developed anywhere in the world. What is the innovation, the improvement in relation to others?

REPLY

Regarding the teaching method, we discussed the classical method, fundamentally theoretical, versus the practical method, based on the inverted classroom and project-based learning, which we support with updated references.

Vegetation analysis presented are very complex to any person but researchers or ecology students. General public will never take advantage of it as it demands a lot of intermediate to advance understanding of statistics and taxonomy.

REPLY

In this case we should mention that the article is not a popular article, it is aimed at young researchers, future managers and teachers. To avoid confusion we have eliminated the expression “and society in general” and we have also included in the title “for young university students”.

Statistics and other methods are poorly explained and presented, e.g. groups in dendrograms are shown without any criteria to define the cut off level.

REPLY

In the text we talk about the criteria and the cut-off line is established. In the case of TWISPAN the cut-off line is at the level of separation of the two major forest types “wet” and “dry”, in the case of the dendrogram the cut-off line is established at the level of the three groups.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is acceptable.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank for your answers.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good, no issues.