New Contributions to the Ericion umbellatae Alliance in the Central Iberian Peninsula

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors of the current paper investigate the shrub associations of Quercus forests in a specific eco-region, on the Iberian Peninsula and inventory and analyze the evolutionary relationships between the taxa. While this work provides valuable inventory and association analyses from conservation perspectives, there are a couple of aspects that would warrant revisiting the manuscript before considering it for publication.

1. I believe the manuscript would benefit from a better emphasis especially in the introduction section on how the work relates to sustainability and how it fits into the scope of the journal.
2. The Materials and Methods section needs significantly more details. Based on how it reads now, the data used for the analysis derived from the authors’ research and prior data publicly available for the ecoregion. I believe the authors need to specifically discuss how did they obtain their own data, sampling strategies, maps, and GPS coordinates of where the data derives from, cite and list the works they rely on for additional data, etc. Also, there is literally no description of how the analyses were performed. Please detail how the cluster data and the ordination plots were generated, which parameters, limits, etc. were used. Detail statistical approaches used, etc.
3. All three figures need a better Figure description, with details on what they represent, axis labels, etc.
4. It would be a benefit to have illustrations of some of the surveyed areas, aka photos of the location, or maps (Google Earth and GPS maps) if any available.
5. Would be of benefit to revise the Abstract, especially including information on why this study is important, relevant, which exact questions it addresses.
6. A minor correction, but please correct in the Conclusions “scrub” to “shrub”.

Author Response

-The Introduction section has been expanded and contextualised on the importance of Mediterranean dry heaths.

-The Materials and Methods section has been rewritten, deepening and detailing the experimental process as well as the analyses used.

-Figures and tables are now, better descrbed

-Some images have been added to better illustrate the location of the associations.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The text definitely needs to be checked by an English native speaker. In many parts the text is difficult to understand and the sentences wordy and complex.

Line 3: Central Iberian Perninsula

Line 17: allows us to separate eight shrubland communities

Lines 22-26: five: Teucrio oxylepis-Cistetum populifolii nova (TCp), Halimio ocymoidis-Ericetum australis nova (HEau), Drosophyllo lusitanicae-Ericetum umbellatae nova (DEu), Erico australis-Cistetum populifolii Rivas Goday 1964 (ECp), Polygalo microphyllae-Cistetum populifolii Rivas Goday 1964, (PCp), Halimio ocymoidis-Ericetum aragonensis Rivas-Martínez 1979 (HEa), Halimio ocymoidis-Ericetum umbellatae Rivas Goday 1964 (HEu) and Ulici eriocladi-Ericetum umbellatae (UEu).

Line 27: Keywords Don't use words already mentioned in the title like alliance and Iberian peninsula. Try to use different keywords like phytosociology, shrubland communities, heathlands etc.

Lines 30-36 and elsewhere: Please cite authorities whenever you mention a species for the first time in your manuscript. Please try to avoid mentioning the common name before the scientific name for instance Quercus suber (cork oak) and Quercus pyrenaica (Pyrenean oak). When you say Portuguese oak which Quercus species do you mean?

Line 38: dominated by Erica spp. (you have more than one different Erica species), Ulex spp. and Cistus populifolius are ....

Lines 40-41: affect them and consequently the endemic taxa present in ....

Line 42: thickets dominated by species of the genus Erica, typical ....

Line 44: what is the meaning of the word catenally?

Lines 49-51: Please always give the author name of a taxon when it first appears in your manuscript. Put the taxa in alphabetical order.

Lines 52-58: Ιn line 73 you mention that you follow Flora Iberica for taxonomic nomenclature you don't do that in the case of Erica aragonensis, although this species is considered a synonym of Erica australis in all major databases like Euro+Med, The Plants List, World Flora online.

Materials and Methods
I think that this part of a paper is very important for the reader. In this case it is rather poor and not very informative. You don't mention anywhere the method that you used for your releves, you don't give us a clue for the numbers given in the tables. Are these coverage symbols according to the Braun-Blanquet approach? Do you follow the Braun-Blanquet phytosociological method? I also think that the names of the associations mentioned in lines 66-70 don't belong here. These are the results of your approach and not the methods you used. Finally you don't say anything about the phytosociological nomenclature.

Results. In this chapter there is also a lack of information. You don't present the tables corresponding to the already known associations but only those of the associations that you have described as new. 

A brief desription for the new associations in needed (main ecological features, altitudinal range, characteristic species etc)

In table 1 you name the new association after Teucrium oxylepis which is present in only 4 releves out of 18. How can you support this? Even in figure 1 these four releves belong to a different group clearly separated from the rest of the plots. Furthermore in the syntaxonomical scheme you mention that your associations belong to the Class Calluno-Ulicetea. However Cistus populifolius belong to Cisto-Lavanduletea stoechadis (according to the European Vegetation Survey).

In table 3. I have the same objections and queries like in table 1. Why you name the association after Drosophyllum lusitanicum which is present in 7 out of 22 releves. Even in figure 1 these releves seem to belong to a different group which is clearly separated.

Figures 2 and 3. It is almost impossible to read these figures.

In Table 4 (synoptic table). could you please explain why some of the species are in a grey band?

Syntaxonomical checklist Ulicetalia minoris is a synonym of Ulicetalia nani Quantin 1935 according to the European vegetation survay.

Author Response

A native speaker cheked the language

Keywords has been changed

Materials and Methods section has been rewritten, deepening and detailing the experimental process as well as the anayses used

Figures and tables are now, better described

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have substantially improved the manuscript after the previous round of revisions and incorporated all of my suggestions. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Lines 30-32: I suggest that you give the scientific name fierst and the English common name in brackets (for instance Quercus pyrenaica Willd. (Pyrenean oak).

Line 37: Halimio ocymoidis-Ericetum umbellatae

Line 51: Erica sp., Ulex sp. Are these species unidentified? If not and you mean that you have more than one species of Erica and Ulex then Erica spp. and Ulex spp. is the correct.

Line 54: ...are the endemisms in these associations, and consequently the endemisms present in.... I think the use of the term endemics or endemic taxa is more correct in this case.

Line 58, 68-70 and elsewhere: Please always cite taxa authors when a taxon is first mentioned in the text.

Line 71: he, therefore,

Line 74: these taxons Please correct to these taxa

Line 75: extrorse

Line 76: non-extrorse, We, therefore,

Like 79: Erica (italics)

Line 83: It is therefore,

Line 135: ...means of detrended correspondence analysis.

Line 142 and possibly elsewhere: replace taxons with the correct taxa

Line 159: the endemism Teucrium oxylepis and Cistus laurifolius. Please replace endemism with endemic. It seems though that Cistus laurifolius is not endemic to the Iberian Peninsula and is mor widespread in the Mediterranean (following Euro+Med)

Lines 168-169: Please give authors names if you cite the taxa for the first time.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. The small corrections requested have been made, see arrangements in the margin of the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.