Intraspecific Trait Variation Regulates Biodiversity and Community Productivity of Shrublands in Drylands
and Yan Li 4,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for such an insightful work.
I have two major points, that might improve the quality of presentation of your research work and make it more attractive for readers:
1. Presentation of study area with quality map. I understand that it's a huge dry area, but such visualization would easy the reading and follow up different parameters and predictors challenges, that are plenty in the text of article. Would be useful also to show the other major landscapes and/or vegetation associations linked to climatic zones or major atmospheric circulation systems.
2.The sampling design and allocation is also mis-presented in the article. I would suggest to put "Figure S3 Geographic distribution..." from the supplementary materials into article body to make spatial understanding of challenges more understandable.
3. The "Resume" and "Conclusions" are not fully express the results from the study. The major stress in conclusion is on "precipitation", which is acceptable, but it is not fully highlights e.g. "interspecific variations" or other predicators (in positive or in negative sense).
I wish good luck to authors.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Thank you for such an insightful work.
I have two major points, that might improve the quality of presentation of your research work and make it more attractive for readers:
- Presentation of study area with quality map. I understand that it's a huge dry area, but such visualization would easy the reading and follow up different parameters and predictors challenges, that are plenty in the text of article. Would be useful also to show the other major landscapes and/or vegetation associations linked to climatic zones or major atmospheric circulation systems.
A: The author has added a map, namely Figure 2, with sampling points in the main body.
2.The sampling design and allocation is also mis-presented in the article. I would suggest to put "Figure S3 Geographic distribution..." from the supplementary materials into article body to make spatial understanding of challenges more understandable.
A: The author has placed Figure S3 as Figure 4 in the main text
- The "Resume" and "Conclusions" are not fully express the results from the study. The major stress in conclusion is on "precipitation", which is acceptable, but it is not fully highlights e.g. "interspecific variations" or other predicators (in positive or in negative sense).
A: The author has reorganized the abstract and the conclusion, especially we addressed how plant
with different strategy will responded to environment pressure.
For example, in the Abstract (lines 21-28), the results of this study were addressed as “We found that with the decrease of environmental pressure, dominant shrub plants changed from conservative to acquisition species in drylands. Specifically, a benign environment (such as stable and adequate precipitation, loose soil, and increased acid deposition) significantly increased plant mean traits such as SLA and WD of shrubs, especially for conservative strategy plants. In addition, a benign environment mainly reduced the functional redundancy of SLA (FRedSLA) by strengthening internal filtering, and ultimately increased aboveground biomass but decreased species richness.”
In conclusion (lines 470-476), the other predictors , such as “interspecific variations”, acid deposition, and soil predictors were also addressed as “We found that the external environment influenced ecosystem functions mainly by adjusting niche allocation (i.e., functional redundancy) through the adjustment of trait-based internal filtering rather than plant mean traits during the assembly of shrub communities. Specifically, stable and sufficient precipitation along with loose soil and acid deposition increased the internal filtering of specific leaf areas, and this effect was mainly observed in the conservative-strategy plants.”
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research topic of the authors is relevant. The scope of work is large. However, there are some comments on the presented material.
Keywords are needed to enhance the capabilities of search systems. The keywords from the title must not be doubled: “Intraspecific variation” is present in the Title.
line 25: abbr. AGB is explained only on the 10th page under Figure 6 but must be explained in the Abstract.
IC, IP, IR, and T must be explained in Figure 1. Is σ2 – variation index or variance? These abbr. are explained in the further text, but the Figure 1 is located on the previous page.
Abbreviation for Intraspecific variation (IV) – is not suitable because it looks like the Roman numeral 4 (IV)
line 141: What was the measure for the canopy? there is m (meters) in the Figures 4 and 5.
How many leaves of each shrub species were scanned for LA measurement?
How many shrub species were investigated?
line 140 – 30 shrub species
line 326 (Figure 3) – 31 shrub species:
line 187 – what are the units for V?
Figure 6 – it is necessary to describe a, b, c, and d like in Figures 3–5.
The reference list corresponds to the content but is not formatted according to the rules of MDPI Forests. The list should be compiled in the order of citation, with respective numbers in the text.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
minor revision
Author Response
Reviewer 2
The research topic of the authors is relevant. The scope of work is large. However, there are some comments on the presented material.
Keywords are needed to enhance the capabilities of search systems. The keywords from the title must not be doubled: “Intraspecific variation” is present in the Title.
A: “Intraspecific variation” has been delated from the Keywords.
line 25: abbr. AGB is explained only on the 10th page under Figure 6 but must be explained in the Abstract.
A: Since the “aboveground biomass” appears only once in the abstract, the authors removed the abbreviation from the Abstract.
IC, IP, IR, and T must be explained in Figure 1. Is σ2 – variation index or variance? These abbr. are explained in the further text, but the Figure 1 is located on the previous page.
A: The author has added these corresponding abbr. in the legend of Figure 1.
Abbreviation for Intraspecific variation (IV) – is not suitable because it looks like the Roman numeral 4 (IV)
A: The author has changed the “IV” into “Intra-V” in the main body.
line 141: What was the measure for the canopy? there is m (meters) in the Figures 4 and 5.
A: In line 156-157, we have added the measure of canopy as “(a+b)/2; here, a and b were the lengths of the long and short axes of the crown, respectively)”
How many leaves of each shrub species were scanned for LA measurement?
A: In line 161, the author has added the replication of LA as “The first part was used to scan the leaf area (LA, four replicates were measured), and then dried the scanned leaves at 60 °C to constant weight to obtain leaf dry mass (LDM).”
How many shrub species were investigated? line 140 – 30 shrub species. line 326 (Figure 3) – 31 shrub species:
A: A total of 30 shrub species were investigated in this study, the error of “31 species” has been corrected.
line 187 – what are the units for V?
A: As described in Carmona at al. (2019), V is the size of the N cells composing the grid (hypervolume estimated as the product of the edges of the cells). This description has been added in the main body.
Carmona, C.P.; de Bello, F.; Mason, N.W.H.; Leps, J. Trait probability density (TPD): measuring functional diversity across scales based on TPD with R. Ecology 2019, 100.
Figure 6 – it is necessary to describe a, b, c, and d like in Figures 3–5.
A: In lines 319-323, the author has modified the describtion as “Specifically, the external filtering of SLA (SLAIC:IR) insignificantly correlated with species richness (P > 0.05; Figure 8a) but was significantly decreased aboveground biomass (R2 = 0.12, P < 0.01; Figure 8b) . However, internal filtering of SLA (SLAIP:IC) increased species richness (R2 = 0.15, P < 0.001; Figure 8c) and aboveground biomass (R2 = 0.13, P < 0.001; Figure 8d).”
The reference list corresponds to the content but is not formatted according to the rules of MDPI Forests. The list should be compiled in the order of citation, with respective numbers in the text.
A: The references have been modified according to the requirements of Forests.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
The title of your article promises a satisfying scientific work.
It is a shortcoming that the abstract is too generalized without mentioning more objective conclusions.
Three hypotheses were identified. However, the way the second hypothesis is expressed is not satisfactory. The use of the word "and" at the beginning of the sentence and the incomplete statement "leaf nitrogen and phosphorus contents..." negatively affected the statement.
In the introduction of the study, many previous studies on similar topics were emphasized. However, the authors report that very few studies have comprehensively addressed the trade-offs between various functional traits as plant strategies in the process of community formation in arid regions. This sentence could be further elaborated. In particular, why a link between drought and such functional mechanisms is required can be emphasized in a few sentences.
Examining the importance of integrating trait-based ecological filters for ecosystem structure and function into climate change prediction models is original work.
The study's approach aligns with the goals of the investigation.
The findings of the study are in line with the arguments and supporting data. However, in addition to the data, it would be useful to include a few photographs of the study (if compliant with journal guidelines)
The study's references are pertinent in terms of their topic matter.
While the paper is detailed, it would benefit from a clearer articulation of its new contributions in the conclusion. Emphasizing the specific implications of the approach in this study compared to similar previous studies would help the importance of the research to be immediately recognized.
Also;
It would be correct to write the keywords in alphabetical order (Line 31)
References written consecutively in the same parenthesis in the text should be written in chronological order (Line 37 and throughout the article).
"Carmona et al., 2019" in the reference list was not found in the text.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Dear authors,
The title of your article promises a satisfying scientific work.
It is a shortcoming that the abstract is too generalized without mentioning more objective conclusions.
A: The author thinks that it is necessary to properly refine the research results, and in combination with your suggestion, modify the following:"We found that with the decrease of environmental pressure, dominant shrub plants changed from conservative to acquisition species in drylands. Specifically, a benign environment (such as stable and adequate precipitation, loose soil, and increased acid deposition) significantly increased plant mean traits such as SLA and WD of shrubs, especially for conservative strategy plants. In addition, a benign environment mainly reduced the functional redundancy of SLA (FRedSLA) by strengthening internal filtering, and ultimately increased aboveground biomass but decreased species richness."
Three hypotheses were identified. However, the way the second hypothesis is expressed is not satisfactory. The use of the word "and" at the beginning of the sentence and the incomplete statement "leaf nitrogen and phosphorus contents..." negatively affected the statement.
A: Is it the first hypothesis ? In your description, hypothesis 1 was relevant.
Thank you for your suggestion, the description has been modified as “(1) Stable and sufficient precipitation is the environmental filter to facilitate the strategic divergence of shrubs in drylands from conservative to acquisitive strategies. Specifically, this effect is achieved by increasing acquisitive traits, such as height, canopy, SLA, and leaf N and P contents, ultimately increasing biodiversity and ecosystem productivity.”
In the introduction of the study, many previous studies on similar topics were emphasized. However, the authors report that very few studies have comprehensively addressed the trade-offs between various functional traits as plant strategies in the process of community formation in arid regions. This sentence could be further elaborated. In particular, why a link between drought and such functional mechanisms is required can be emphasized in a few sentences.
A: In lines 105-111, the author has added sentences to emphasize the reason why these trade-offs in drylands were less studied.
The descriptions are as follow: “This is because when compring to tropical forests, shrublands are lower plant species diversity, simpler vertical community structure, more specific morphological structure (e.g. succulent stems and leaves), and less impact on global forest carbon sequestration. Further, some studies have suggested that plant species in drylands were more inclined to cooperate with each other, rather than trade-off to survive in high-pressure environments.”
Examining the importance of integrating trait-based ecological filters for ecosystem structure and function into climate change prediction models is original work. The study's approach aligns with the goals of the investigation. The findings of the study are in line with the arguments and supporting data. However, in addition to the data, it would be useful to include a few photographs of the study (if compliant with journal guidelines)
A: Thank you for your suggestion, but we don't have suitable photographs for display.
It would be correct to write the keywords in alphabetical order (Line 31)
A: In lines 31-32, the keywords has been reorganized according to the alphabetical order.
References written consecutively in the same parenthesis in the text should be written in chronological order (Line 37 and throughout the article).
A: The references in the main body have been reorganized according to the requirements of MDPI Forests.
"Carmona et al., 2019" in the reference list was not found in the text.
A: In line 200, this reference has been added.
