Species Composition and Ecological Niche Overlap of Alien and Endemic Plants in South Korea: Insights from the National Ecosystem Survey

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I gone through the manuscript and read the manuscript worked on Species Composition and Ecological Niche Overlap of Alien and Endemic Plants in South Korea. The manuscript has been given the significant outcomes for the threat of spread by alien plants to the ecological stability of endemic plants. 

Comments:

1. The abstract of the manuscript needs to rewrite by adding the introduction and interdiction and conclusion.
2. Line numbers 144-156: these lines in methodology section needs to remove and add the methodology for the estimation of the parameters for help in show the impact of Alien species on endemic plants,.
3. The metrials and methods section of the manuscript needs to rewrite and unnecessary information needs to omitted.
4. Overall the result of the manuscript is written nicely but the most of the places discussion of the results is included i.e. line number 336-343: needs to shift to the discussion.
5. The discussion of the manuscript needs to be improving by adding some recent literature.
6. The conclusion of the manuscript is also needs to be shorten.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript may be suitable for the publication after major revision.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your meticulous and thoughtful comments. We have prepared a detailed response in the attached Word file, addressing each of your requests.
In addition, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript to improve awkward sentences and word choices throughout, and these changes are marked in red for your review.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In their study, Park & Cheon explored whether there is a niche overlap between alien and endemic plant species in S. Korea. The study is interesting, well structured and well written. I have only a few minor remarks that can be seen below.

 

L.137: What does “gradient” mean?

L.139: add the version of the worldclim database used

L.139-141: clarify the spatial resolution of these layers.

L.148: I disagree! Altitude is not a proxy of soil type but only of the climatic conditions. Latitude has also a similar effect as altitude has.

L.149: here you can cite doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059425

L.152-154: How did you calculate or quantify HQ? The same also applies to WY? You need to clarify how did you calculate these variables.

L.177-180: it is unclear how the Agreement (A) index has been calculated.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your meticulous and thoughtful comments. We have prepared a detailed response in the attached Word file, addressing each of your requests.
In addition, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript to improve awkward sentences and word choices throughout, and these changes are marked in red for your review.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Species Composition and Ecological Niche Overlap of Non-indigenous

and Native Plants in South Korea: Insights from the National

Ecosystem Survey

 

This paper uses the excellent data resources in the National Ecosystem Survey of South Korea to examine three original hypotheses it presents.  The tables and figures are of high quality, the references are appropriate, and the analysis and discussion of the hypotheses are good.  

Because this paper does not provide a description of the native and non-native flora of South Korea and the primary habitat types represented, it lacks context for most readers.  There should be a brief description of the flora of South Korea in the introduction, including the number of species and families, which families are dominant, the degree of endemism, and the composition of the non-native flora.  This will be helpful for those not familiar with the flora and  it will form a background and provide a context for the examination of the three hypotheses.

It is not clear if the interpretation of the word endemic is the that of the traditional iteration meaning restricted to a particular area and not occurring elsewhere, as it seems to be used as simply meaning native or indigenous.  If the study is truly about narrowly restricted endemics, there should be a discussion including how many taxa lie within the true definition of endemic, how many families have endemics and in which endemics are most abundant, and in what habitat types they occur.

Are there parallels or comparisons that can be made between the South Korean flora and that of another area in the context of this study?  If so, it would be useful to mention them.

The use of the word alien throughout the manuscript seems awkward – so in the first few sections I suggested altering references between alien, non-indigenous and exotic – but that is up to the authors, and it is likely easier to have one primary word (alien) used.

The References section needs to be carefully reviewed to make certain that all of citations are within the correct format required by Forests.

I have introduced a few suggested wording changes (highlighted in red in the manuscript) for the authors to consider as they revise the paper.

I think the study itself is excellent, and that the hypotheses put forward and analyzed are valuable contributions.  It is an appropriate use of the high-quality data sets in the National Ecosystem Survey of South Korea. With the provision of a better background description, the study will be an excellent addition to our understanding of the South Korean flora, both native and non-native.  I strongly encourage the authors to revise and re-submit the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your meticulous and thoughtful comments. We have prepared a detailed response in the attached Word file, addressing each of your requests.
In addition, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript to improve awkward sentences and word choices throughout, and these changes are marked in red for your review.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author

You have done good wrok in revision of the manuscript. but before it final for the publication. kindly incude one line in abstrct for the importance of the study as introduction. 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. As suggested, we have added a sentence in the Abstract to highlight the importance of the study(See, R1-01). In addition, we carefully revised the entire manuscript for English expression, including grammar, word choice, and clarity. All revisions are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision of the manuscript is excellent and the responses to comments provided in the reviews are very good.  Thank you for revising the manuscript so successfully, and in my opinion it will be a strong contribution.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. As suggested, we have added a sentence in the Abstract to highlight the importance of the study(See, R1-01). In addition, we carefully revised the entire manuscript for English expression, including grammar, word choice, and clarity. All revisions are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.