Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

The Current State of Populations of Rhaponticum altaicum (Asteraceae) in the Northern and Central Kazakhstan

Diversity 2025, 17(3), 206; https://doi.org/10.3390/d17030206

by Saule Mamyrova¹

, Andrey Kupriyanov², Margarita Ishmuratova³

, Anna Ivashchenko⁴, Anar Myrzagaliyeva⁵

, Aidyn Orazov⁵

and Serik Kubentayev^5,6,*

Reviewer 1:

Omar Cabrera

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3:

Marcus Nadruz

Diversity 2025, 17(3), 206; https://doi.org/10.3390/d17030206

Submission received: 6 January 2025 / Revised: 26 February 2025 / Accepted: 10 March 2025 / Published: 13 March 2025

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the manuscript entitled "The Current State of Populations of Rhaponticum altaicum 2 (Asteraceae) in the Northern and Central Kazakhstan" I have the following recommendations and specific corrections

Ln 43-51: the text should be deleted, it corresponds to the instructions of the journal

Ln52-114: The entire Introduction chapter should be revised and give more coherence to the paragraphs. I suggest starting with the natural history of the plant, its distribution, its characteristics and finally its chemical properties, the objectives or hypothesis of the study should be included.

Ln 368-374: I understand that this is a study of population descriptions, but it seems to me that these conclusions are based on merely descriptive analysis. My suggestion is that you use all the trait data, the plot data, the composition and structure of the plant communities (via NMDS) and the ontogenic data in a full model through statistical analysis and then conclude about the status of the populations and their impact on their conservation.

Apart from the main editor's criteria, these would be my suggestions for the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments

Author Response

After reviewing the manuscript entitled "The Current State of Populations of Rhaponticum altaicum 2 (Asteraceae) in the Northern and Central Kazakhstan" I have the following recommendations and specific corrections

Author's Response: We thank the reviewer for their work and the great help the authors provided with the manuscript.

Ln 43-51: the text should be deleted, it corresponds to the instructions of the journal

Author's Response: deleted this paragraph

Author's Response: We have completely rewritten the introductory section as recommended by the reviewer.

Q3. Ln 368-374: I understand that this is a study of population descriptions, but it seems to me that these conclusions are based on merely descriptive analysis. My suggestion is that you use all the trait data, the plot data, the composition and structure of the plant communities (via NMDS) and the ontogenic data in a full model through statistical analysis and then conclude about the status of the populations and their impact on their conservation.

Author's Response: We have extended the statistical analysis using NMDS Analysis.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Brief summary

This interesting study deals with the assessment of the status of the Rhaponticum altaicum in two regions of Central and Northern Kazakhstan, providing data related to the morphological characteristic of the species, the structure of the population and the diversity of plant communities where the Rh. altaicum participates. Furthermore, information about the ecological characteristics of the places where the Rh. altaicum occurs was given. Based on morphological indices, authors conclude that the stem height of Rh. altaicum varies depending on the species' growth site, indicating the crucial role of the favorable ecological conditions for the development of Rh. altaicum. The above, should be taken into consideration when measures regarding the protection and the conservation of this taxon are implemented.

However, the submitted manuscript needs a minor revision. Please find my comments below.

Specific comments

General comments

· The section “Materials and methods should be placed before the section “Results”.

Minor comments

· Line 43-51: Delete this paragraph.

· Line 55: Rewrite “There are six species in Kazakhstan” as “There are six species of the genus Rhaponticum in Kazakhstan”.

· Line 71: Write “Rh. Carthamoides” in italics.

· In Figure 1 geographical coordinates and the north arrow should be added.

· Line 105-107: Rewrite this sentence as follow: “Due to the valuable medicinal properties of Rh. altaicum, the wide distribution range and the relatively high yield compared to other Kazakh representatives of the genus Rhaponticum, this taxon is of interest as an alternative source of valuable biologically active substances.”

· Line 114: The authors should explain what they mean by “for sampling for introduction”, in order for the aims of this study to be clearer and more understandable.

· Line 131: Replace “mezoxerophytes” by “mesoxerophytes”.

· Line 142: Replace “hamefittes” by “Chamaephytes”.

· Line 229: Replace “Table 2” by “Table 1”.

· Line 231-232: Replace “m2” by “m²”.

· Line 238: Replace “Table 3” by “Table 2”.

· Line 237-239: Please check and correct the numbers of the plant height.

· Line 256-257: In figure 5 it will be more useful to create box plots for all examined morphometric features of the Rh. altaicum populations. After that, the height distribution of Rh. altaicum as the most important morphological parameter, could be further analysed.

· Line 261: According to figure 5 Pop 1 has not the lowest height values. Please check and correct.

· Line 292-293: Rewrite this sentence as follow: “The floristic composition of these communities include 35 species from 32 genera and 20 families.”.

· Line 318: Rewrite the species Juncus gerardii, Elymus repens in italics.

· Line 332-335: This paragraph should be removed. It is a repetition of the previous paragraph.

· Line 336-341: Replace “m2” by “m²”.

· Line 405-408: Replace the images in figure 9, because they are the same as in figure 8, and choose the correct photos.

· Line 413 & 417: Replace “m2” by “m²”.

Author Response

Brief summary

However, the submitted manuscript needs a minor revision. Please find my comments below.

Author's response: We thank to review for the work done and for the great help provided to the authors in the work on the manuscript.

Specific comments

General comments

The section “Materials and methods should be placed before the section “Results”.

Author's response: We have moved the ‘Materials and Methods’ section before the ‘Results’ section

Minor comments

Line 43-51: Delete this paragraph.
Line 55: Rewrite “There are six species in Kazakhstan” as “There are six species of the genus Rhaponticum in Kazakhstan”.
Line 71: Write “Rh. Carthamoides” in italics.
In Figure 1 geographical coordinates and the north arrow should be added.
Line 105-107: Rewrite this sentence as follow: “Due to the valuable medicinal properties of Rh. altaicum, the wide distribution range and the relatively high yield compared to other Kazakh representatives of the genus Rhaponticum, this taxon is of interest as an alternative source of valuable biologically active substances.”
Line 114: The authors should explain what they mean by “for sampling for introduction”, in order for the aims of this study to be clearer and more understandable.
Line 131: Replace “mezoxerophytes” by “mesoxerophytes”.
Line 142: Replace “hamefittes” by “Chamaephytes”.
Line 229: Replace “Table 2”by “Table 1”.
Line 231-232: Replace “m2” by “m²”.
Line 238: Replace “Table 3”by “Table 2”.
Line 237-239: Please check and correct the numbers of the plant height.
Line 256-257: In figure 5 it will be more useful to create box plots for all examined morphometric features of the Rh. altaicum populations. After that, the height distribution of Rh. altaicumas the most important morphological parameter, could be further analysed.
Line 261: According to figure 5 Pop 1 has not the lowest height values. Please check and correct.
Line 292-293: Rewrite this sentence as follow: “The floristic composition of these communities include 35 species from 32 genera and 20 families.”.
Line 318: Rewrite the species Juncus gerardii, Elymus repensin italics.
Line 332-335: This paragraph should be removed. It is a repetition of the previous paragraph.
Line 336-341: Replace “m2” by “m²”.
Line 405-408: Replace the images in figure 9, because they are the same as in figure 8, and choose the correct photos.
Line 413 & 417: Replace “m2” by “m²”.

Author's response: We have made corrections in accordance with all the reviewer's comments. The authors are grateful for careful consideration and constructive suggestions to improve the article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

O manuscrito trata de estudos realizadosThe manuscript deals with studies conducted on populations of Rhaponticum altaicum, focusing on ecological conditions, particularly moisture regimes, salinity, and anthropogenic factors, emphasizing the most favorable habitats and those less favorable.

The research was well conducted, covering a considerable area and using appropriate materials and methods.

The cited references align with the subject matter and are relatively recent.

The results may be useful in revegetation projects for the species, as it has significant medicinal potential and, consequently, high demand, yet lacks proper regulation.

The manuscript includes some considerations for the authors' review.

I consider the manuscript suitable for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

O manuscrito trata de estudos realizadosThe manuscript deals with studies conducted on populations of Rhaponticum altaicum, focusing on ecological conditions, particularly moisture regimes, salinity, and anthropogenic factors, emphasizing the most favorable habitats and those less favorable. The research was well conducted, covering a considerable area and using appropriate materials and methods. The cited references align with the subject matter and are relatively recent. The results may be useful in revegetation projects for the species, as it has significant medicinal potential and, consequently, high demand, yet lacks proper regulation. The manuscript includes some considerations for the authors' review. I consider the manuscript suitable for publication.

Author's response:

We thank to review for the work done and for the great help provided to the authors in the work on the manuscript.

Q1: In fact, we are talking about the blade of the leaf, so I suggest changing leaf to blade when the comment is in relation to the shape.