Forest and Population Characteristics of Vulnerable Relict Tsuga forrestii Downie in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript ID: diversity-3450056
Title: Forest and Population Characteristics of Vulnerable Relict Tsuga forrestii in China
Authors: Peng-Bin Han , Shu-Gang Lu , Cindy Q. Tang *
Special Issue: 15th Anniversary of Diversity—Biodiversity, Conservation and Ecology of Animals, Plants and Microorganisms
Type: Article
The Tsuga forrestii is a vulnerable species under criteria A2cd as the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species assessed. It is a relict plant species restricted resident in Guizhou, Yunnan, Sichuan, China. The survey for the community characteristics of Tsuga forrestii forests or subdominated forests, even the forests contain T. forrestii, are vital importance for this species in-situ conservation.
This study investigated 33 plots with size range from 400 to 1000m2, which include the vast majority of T. forrestii forests in the worlds. Based on the field survey, the MS analyzed the community composition, taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity, age structure of T. forrestii. The result is very importance for the international readers understanding the community composition and structure of T. forrestii. The manuscript is well written, figures are wonderful. But some problems remain in the MS. So, I suggest as below.
Introduction
1. More information should be given about T. forrestii, such as the discovery, phylogeny, and distribution of the species, etc.
Materials and Methods
2. The Section 2.2, I suggest you describe these section in the correlative Introduction section.
Data Collection and Analysis
3. I suggest you put the Data Collection and Analysis under section 2.
4. Line130-132, Why did you use this height standard classified the sublayers for the arborous layer?
5. Why didnot you survey the shrub with height lower than 1.3m?
6. Line140-141, I cannot understand for the overstory RIV caculation, normally DBH should be included, but it's missing from your equation. I suggest you revised the equation accroding to Curtis`s method.
7.Line145, When you calculated the species richness for each plots, how did you treat the different sample size of the area for the plots. You should provide the equation for each diversity index.
8.Line147-148, I didnot find the relevant result in you MS.
9.Line175, What was the scenarios set when you used the V.Phylomaker? You should cited the V.Phylomaker package with (Jin and Qian, 2019).
10. You should provide the packages about phylogenetic diversity, taxonomic diversity, community clustering analysis, etc.
Results
11.Line294, I cannot find this figure (Fig 8B).
Discussion
12. Line348, Where is the table 1?
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Review 1:
- More information should be given about T. forrestii, such as the discovery, phylogeny, and distribution of the species, etc.
We have given the information about the discovery, phylogeny of T. forrestii.
- The Section 2.2, I suggest you describe these section in the correlative Introduction section.
We think giving the distinct section 2.2 to introduce the biological characteristics of T. forrestii in details will make the content logical and easy to understand.
- I suggest you put the Data Collection and Analysis under section 2.
Yes, it should be section 2. Thank you. We have indicated it as “2.3 Data Collection and Analysis” in this revision.
- Line130-132, Why did you use this height standard classified the sublayers for the arborous layer?
In this study, we classify woody species with heights ≥ 5 m as the arborous layer, further categorizing individuals exceeding 25 m into the emergent sublayer, those between 10-25 m into the canopy sublayer, and those 5-10 m into the subcanopy sublayer. This classification can show the forest structure in details. The results presented in Fig. 3B substantiate the rationale of our classification approach.
- Why did not you survey the shrub with height lower than 1.3m?
Our investigation of shrub under 1.3 m in height was already documented in lines 131-133 of the previous manuscript, with visual support provided in Table S2. There is no need to revise it in this revision.
- Line140-141, I cannot understand for the overstory RIV caculation, normally DBH should be included, but it's missing from your equation. I suggest you revised the equation accroding to Curtis`s method.
This study utilizes DBH (diameter at breast height) data of arborous layer woody species individuals to compute basal area, with subsequent calculations of relative basal area and importance values. In our formular RIV = (Relative density + Relative basal area)/2 for overstory species, the Relative basal area is calculated from DBH. The formular has been provided in our previous manuscript and this revision.
- Line145, when you calculated the species richness for each plot, how did you treat the different sample size of the area for the plots. You should provide the equation for each diversity index.
The size of our sampling quadrats was determined based on the "minimum area required to capture maximum species richness," as described in our previous manuscript and this revision. Therefore, variations in quadrat size do not effect on the analysis of species richness.
- Line147-148, I did not find the relevant result in you MS.
The seed plants within the Tsuga forrestii forests were floristically classified into families and genera following the taxonomic system of Wu, 1991, 2003. Comprehensive results of this floristic analysis have been described in the first paragraph of “Forest floristic features and species diversity” subsection of Results section in our previous manuscript and this reversion.
- Line175, What was the scenarios set when you used the V.Phylomaker? You should cited the V.Phylomaker package with (Jin and Qian, 2019).
Regarding the use of the V. PhyloMaker package and its methodological context, we clarify the following:
The time-calibrated phylogeny was generated using V. PhyloMaker (v.1.0; Jin & Qian, 2019) in R (v.4.1.0). We adopted Smith and Brown’s dataset as the backbone tree and integrated 197 species from the Tsuga forrestii forest plots. For species absent in the backbone tree, we applied the genus-level phylogenetic placement. We have now explicitly cited Jin & Qian (2019) in the revised manuscript (Methods section) and added methodological details (e.g., scenario selection) to enhance transparency.
- You should provide the packages about phylogenetic diversity, taxonomic diversity, community clustering analysis, etc.
For the phylogenetic diversity of plant species in the T. forrestii forest, we used the R package V.PhyloMaker (v.0.1.0) which we provided under “2.3.3 Phylogenetic analysis and phylogenetic relatedness” in this revision. For taxonomic diversity, i.e. species richness, in other words it is for number of species, which we don’t need any package to calculate it. For clustering analysis, i.e., a floristic similarity dendrogram, we have provided the software’s citation in our previous manuscript and this revision.
- Line294, I cannot find this figure (Fig 8B).
We are sorry for the mistake. In our previous manuscript, Fig. 8B should be Fig. 6B. We have corrected it in this revision.
- Line348, where is the table 1?
We have inserted Table 1 under the Discussion section in this revision.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe results of a comprehensive study of relict Tsuga forest in China are presented. The data are important for botany, biogeography, and nature protection. I am sure that the MS are interesting for the scientists around the world. The authors used the proper methodology, which includes classical and modern molecular-genetic approaches. The obtained results, illustrated by figures, were confirmed by statistical methods. The MS is very clear. The conclusions are based on the results and are consistent.
I recommend the paper for publication in the journal Diversity after some corrections.
Suggestions to the authors:
Major suggestions:
1. Improve the quality of some figures.
2. Add 30-40 recent (published in 2020-2024) papers to the reference list. It is a different task, but from 46 references, only 6 are recent.
Minor suggestions:
1. Keywords: Don’t use as keywords the terms from the title.
2. Line 10, 17-19, 22, and further: Please add the authors of species and genus at first mention. You can add the author name for Tsuga forrestii in the title.
3. Figure 1: Please improve the visibility of the T. merthensiana label. I recommend using the same labels, like labels for T. forrestii. But check the font of T. forrestii; it looks different in comparison with the fonts of other labels.
4. Line 75: Use the same style for the questions; correct “what” to “What.”.
5. Figure 2: Enlarge the figure and font of the label “Plot of the forest….”.
6. Lines 83-85 and 119-120: You are repeating the information about 33 plots. Please, try to correct it.
7. Line 102: Explain the DBH abbreviation here instead of line 125.
8. Figure 4: Is it possibly to improve the quality of the labels on the figure?
9. Figure 5: Enlarge the font size for the labels on the figure.
10. Lines 294, 348: Delete yellow color.
11. Figure 7: Please improve the quality of the figures.
12. Section 8.2: The section is too short. Add information, or joint sections 8.1 and 8.2.
Author Response
Review 2
Major suggestions:
- Improve the quality of some figures.
We have improved the quality of all the Figures in this revision.
- Add 30-40 recent (published in 2020-2024) papers to the reference list. It is a different task, but from 46 references, only 6 are recent.
There are few literatures on the study of Tsuga species, but we have provided the latest references as much as possible based on the original literature.. Please see those references [10], [11], [26], [37], [49-51].
Minor suggestions:
- Keywords: Don’t use as keywords the terms from the title.
We have removed the overlapping terms "Tsuga forrestii" from the Keywords. We added “Habitat fragmentation” in this revision.
- Line 10, 17-19, 22, and further: Please add the authors of species and genus at first mention. You can add the author name for Tsuga forrestii in the title.
We have added the species authority 'Downie' to Tsuga forrestii in its first mention in the abstract. For the title, we don’t know whether or not we should add the author name for Tsuga forresttii, because this has to follow the journal’s preference. Many journals require that taxonomic authority should not be added to the species name in title of an article.
Regarding other species, we have not applied authors based on two criteria: (1) taxonomic clarity for well-established species without nomenclatural disputes, and (2) preservation of narrative readability in multispecies community descriptions.
- Figure 1: Please improve the visibility of the T. merthensiana label. I recommend using the same labels, like labels for T. forrestii. But check the font of T. forrestii; it looks different in comparison with the fonts of other labels.
We have improved the visibility of all Tsuga species on the Fig. 1.
- Line 75: Use the same style for the questions; correct “what” to “What.”.
We have used the same style for the questions, and corrected “what” to “What”.
- Figure 2: Enlarge the figure and font of the label “Plot of the forest….”.
We have enlarged Fig. 2 and the font of the label “Plot of the forest dominated by Tsuga forrestii”
- Lines 83-85 and 119-120: You are repeating the information about 33 plots. Please, try to correct it.
We have modified the sentence.
- Line 102: Explain the DBH abbreviation here instead of line 125.
We have done so.
- Figure 4: Is it possibly to improve the quality of the labels on the figure?
We have improved the quality of the labels in Fig. 4.
- Figure 5: Enlarge the font size for the labels on the figure.
We have enlarged the font size and improved the quality of Fig. 5.
- Lines 294, 348: Delete yellow color.
We have corrected “Fig. 8B” to “Fig. 6B”, and deleted the yellow color.
- Figure 7: Please improve the quality of the figures.
We have improved the quality of Fig. 7.
- Section 8.2: The section is too short. Add information, or joint sections 8.1 and 8.2.
The section numbers in our previous manuscript were wrongly converted by the editorial officers of Diversity. The section 8.2 now in this revision is section 4.2. In this revision, we have extended the contents of this section.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
