Vegetation Structure and Habitat Characterization: An Ecological Basis for the Conservation of the Korean Endemic Plant, Taihyun’s Abelia (Zabelia tyaihyonii (Nakai) Hisauti & H.Hara, 1951; Caprifoliaceae)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll the comments have been given in the PDF itself.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for your thorough and thoughtful comments. Based on your suggestions, we have prepared a detailed response. Please refer to the attached file for our point-by-point reply. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is very interesting and well documented. However, I believe the introduction could be significantly enriched by clearly highlighting and substantiating the central theme of the study: the conservation of an endemic and threatened species.
It would also be beneficial to clearly establish the perspective from which the data are analyzed and conclusions are drawn. The manuscript presents itself as a study focused on vegetation structure and habitat characterization for conservation purposes. After reading the document, it appears to adopt an “ecological” approach to conservation, which brings certain biases, scopes, and limitations that would be valuable to explore in greater detail—particularly in the discussion section, where conservation strategies are addressed.
Currently, biodiversity conservation increasingly emphasizes the inclusion of social or socio-ecological variables in identifying priority areas for in situ strategies. Therefore, incorporating more social or historical context about the study sites could greatly enhance the manuscript. Additionally, expanding on the contributions from other areas of knowledge mentioned in the text would reinforce the manuscript’s interdisciplinary potential. This is particularly important if the aim is to integrate other critical forms of information—such as population genetics—to design relevant and precise conservation strategies.
Regarding the organization of the manuscript, I found it somewhat complex. From the title, the study seems to focus on “vegetation structure and habitat characterization,” but the manuscript also presents an in-depth ecological analysis of the identified communities to propose conservation sites. This aspect could be included explicitly as a stated objective and also reflected in the title (e.g., Vegetation Structure and Habitat Characterization: An Ecological Basis for the Conservation of Taihyun’s Abelia…).
Consequently, the structure of the Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion sections may benefit from reorganization.
I suggest aligning the analyses with the study’s objectives and maintaining that structure across the results and discussion. This approach is more reader-friendly and helps to clearly emphasize the main findings. In particular, the Results section could begin with (1) habitat characterization and community identification as a logical entry point, followed by (2) the Z-richness analysis and details on each community, and finally (3) the integration of these findings under an ecological conservation framework. This is one possible structure, but I strongly recommend reconsidering the overall organization to ensure clarity and coherence.
Regarding Figure 7, I suggest refining the interpretation of the dendrogram. As currently presented, the clustering cut appears to occur below the 25% Information Remaining threshold, which visually suggests the presence of only two clusters. For a more accurate and informative interpretation, I recommend setting the cluster cut at approximately 37.5% Information Remaining, which would better reflect the internal structure of the data and allow for a more nuanced differentiation among the groups identified.
The Conclusions section comes across as somewhat speculative and does not clearly articulate how the research objectives were addressed or to what extent the initial hypotheses were supported by the findings. I recommend explicitly referring back to the three specific objectives outlined in the manuscript and using them as a guiding structure for the conclusion. This would provide a more coherent and impactful synthesis of the study’s contributions, helping to underscore the significance and scope of the research.
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for your thorough and thoughtful comments. Based on your suggestions, we have prepared a detailed response. Please refer to the attached file for our point-by-point reply. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript focuses on the habitat characteristics associated with an endemic Korean species. Species composition surveys followed by several different types of statistical analyses were able to determine that this endemic species is associated with three community types, though not all of them can sustain the species in the long-term. This type of work is important as it will assist with the conservation and protection of suitable habitat for the species for potential reintroductions and the exiting habitat where the species is found. One novel aspect of the work is the use of zeta diversity to explore community diversity across sites.
Below I provide feedback by section and the attached file has 40 comments that should be considered and addressed.
Abstract - The abstract should end with a conclusion statement. For example, "This study, using a diverse set of analytical tools, was able to pinpoint key features of habitat quality and composition associated with Taihyun’s abelia and the anthropogenic factors that will lead to its decline. Our work provides a road map for the conservation of other rare and endemic Korean plant species with similar conservation issues. "
Introduction - Although the introduction provides enough background for the need for the study, the objectives of the study are not clearly listed (lines 75-85). In addition, the following lines 67-70 are just definitions with no connection to the above or below paragraphs.
Methods - This section is very detailed. Minor suggestions were made in the attached pdf.
Results - This section could be reduced as in many instances repetition of methodology, citations, and discussion have been included. All these sections have been highlighted in the attached pdf and should be deleted and/or incorporated in the methods or discussion.
Figures 5 and 6 could go in a supplement.
Discussion - Minor editorial suggestions have been made, see attached pdf.
Conclusion - This section can be highly reduced as currently is a series of paragraphs covering as many conservation topics as possible. Focus on 1) the species, 2) balance between the protection of the species and anthropogenic uses of the habitat, and 3) policy that will protect the habitat, but will engage the local communities. Lastly, as part of the conclusion, note that the work that was conducted provides a road map for the conservation of other endemic Korean species with similar conservation issues.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for your thorough and thoughtful comments. Based on your suggestions, we have prepared a detailed response. Please refer to the attached file for our point-by-point reply. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe observations have been addressed. I have no further comments.
Author Response
Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful feedback. Based on the suggestions regarding sentence reorganization from other reviewers, we have made final revisions accordingly. We sincerely appreciate your insights.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
Thank you for considering and incorporating the suggestions that were made. Still, I will note that the results section should present the findings of the study without attempting to analyze or interpret them. Readers will appreciate the occasional reiteration of methodology; however, the role of the results section is to set the stage for the discussion section by providing all the necessary information and not discussing the finds. See pdf for the few sections that should be incorporated in the discussion. Lastly, a few minor edits to the figure's captures were suggested.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your meticulous comments. Referring to the annotated file you kindly provided, we revised and supplemented the manuscript accordingly. The modified sections have been marked in red in the revised version. In relocating portions of the Results section to the Discussion section, we carefully considered the logical flow and context. In addition, we revised and refined the figure captions. We also reviewed and corrected the reference list and corresponding in-text citation numbers. Thank you once again for your valuable guidance.
