Ecological and Syntaxonomic Analysis of Pinus halepensis Mill. in the Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work deals with a very interesting topic such as that of the pine forests dominated by Pinus halepensis in Spain. It does so from a phytosociological point of view, an approach with a long tradition in Spain and in much of Europe. However, I think that it affects too much climatic aspects that are secondary, although important. In my opinion, the analysis should focus on the floristic characterization of the pine forests and the biogeographical aspects. On the other hand, the relationship of this type of pine forest with those of other Mediterranean territories is of great interest. However, these aspects are not emphasized when drawing the conclusions, which reduces their appeal to an international audience. And, surprisingly, such a crucial aspect as recognizing that many of the P. halepensis formations are natural in nature and their implications for reforestation and ecological restoration, is neglected both in the discussion and in the conclusions.

The rest of my comments can be found in the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the comments made by the reviewer, which have allowed us to improve the study.

All suggestions made have been taken into consideration.

- We have included in the abstract: The objective of this work is a review of the natural communities of Pinus ha-lepensis in Spain; For this methodologically, we have used 400 phytosociological inventories, which we subject to georeferencing and statistical, biogeographical and bioclimatic treatment. The summary is as requested.

- and has been cultivated and overlooked by Spanish phytosociologists Substitute for “and it has been used in reforestation and neglected by phytosociology”

- Separated from the previous paragraph at the request (see text)

- which have recently been described by Pesaresi et al. Replace by “Recently Pesaresi et al. several Pinus halepensis communities have been described in the Mediterranean”.

- The citation “Ruiz Daniels, R., Taylor, R. S., Serra‐Varela, M. J., Vendramin, G. G., González‐Martínez, S. C., & Grivet, D. (2018) is included. Inferring selection in instances of long‐range colonization: the Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis) in the Mediterranean Basin. Molecular ecology, 27(16), 3331-3345”.

- The citation "Bucci, G., Anzidei, M., Madaghiele, A., & Vendramin, G. G. (1998)" is included. Detection of haplotypic variation and natural hybridization in halepensis‐complex pine species using chloroplast simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers. Molecular Ecology, 7(12), 1633-1643”

- Figure 1 is removed and all figures are renumbered

- Is included to make sense of the sentence “The statistical analysis (cluster and DCA) (Figures 1A,B; 2), together with the ecological, biogeographical, bioclimatic and floristic analysis, allows us to make a syntaxonomic review of the Pinus halepensis communities in the Iberian Peninsula, and propose several new syntaxes”

- Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 are removed from the text and moved to supplementary material.

- This phrase is included to clarify the meaning of the ombroedaphoxeric index “The application of this index serves to differentiate the edaphoxerophilous associations from the climatophilous ones of Pinus halepensis”.

- New phrase included at the request of reviewer 1: “Pinus halepensis has its bioclimatic optimum in semi-arid environments, where it acts as a climatophile, in dry and lower sub-humid environments it can occupy rocky environments, where it acts as an edaphoxerophile, this behavior is explained based on the ombroedaphoxeric index”.

- Phrase included at the request of reviewer 1: “With this research we confirm the autochthonous character of Pinus halepenis in Spain, and with the acceptance of the associations already described, and of the new natural associations, we open the door to future repopulations in the bioclimatic environments typical of this species”.

- Sentence deleted at the request of reviewer 1: P. halepensis is widely distributed throughout the thermo- and mesomediterranean areas of the Mediterranean region and the whole of the Spanish Levante, the Betic mountain ranges and the Balearic Islands

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate that this study contribute to clarify clasification of Pinus halepensis communities and bring many valuable information about particular associations.

I have few minor remarks:

Abstract

• use citations with name instead of numbers [2], [35]
• page 1, line 31: positive precipitation instead of temperature for Pp

Introduction

• I do not understand  why information about P. pinea, P. brutia and P. halepensis are in Introduction, explain better relationship between two other species and P. halepensis, information about different species are presented in confusion for me  (from page 2, line 46-P. halepensis; from page 2, line 59-P. pinea; from page 2, line 65-mixed information about P. halepensis  and P. pinea)
• The aim of study is missing in introduction, why is important to do ecological and syntaxonomic analysis

Results and Discussion

• very long, unseparated chapter, I recomment to dividied it into subchapters representing associations
• page 8, line 226-use English, please
• page 13, line 373-correct halpensis to halepensis

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the comments made by the reviewer, which have allowed us to improve the study.

All suggestions made have been taken into consideration.

-Regarding the summary, the names of the authors are used, positive temperature is replaced by positive precipitation

- The objectives are written in the introduction

- The results chapter is broken down into subsections ranging from 3.1 to 3.9

- A sentence is added to clarify why Pinus pinea is named “There is some controversy about the autochthonous character of Pinus pinea, allows us to predict future research on this species”, as well as the autochthonous character and interest of Pinus halepensis, and its relationship with P. brutia.

- The phrase in Spanish is translated into English. All the text has been reviewed by a native speaker and expert in the English language.

- Corrects the word halepensis that was misspelled

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript of Cano et al. “Ecological and sytaxonomic analysis…” is a descriptive study about Pinus halepensis communities in the Iberian Penninsula. The representation of different plant communities base in collected data from other studies, and following a phytosociololgical description of these communities is very poor and descriptive. The association of these alliances with climatic variables is demonstrated, however should be considered an expected result. The manuscript is clear and easy to follow, the English sounds ok, and the results are of interest, although one of the main concerns I have about the manuscript is the descriptive character, which makes it interesting for local readers more than for an international readership. The statistical tools are poorly explained and the presentation of the results are deficient. The results are presented in a very extensive way and it is difficult to follow the relationships between the results and the discussion.

• I am assuming that you do not have plots and these plots have not size, so, the species composition will depend of the size of the plot. Because of that, phytosociological methods are very inefficient to describe communities from an ecological point of view.
• The last paragraph of the Introduction should indicate objectives and hypotheses to test. There are not objectives in this work further than to describe information collected by others.
• Methods are my main concern: Releves that are used in multivariate analysis, but without size or sampling method. This should be deeply clarified.
• Authors should have applied a multiple tests correction (Holm or Bonferroni can be an option). There’s too many and similar statistical tests that will required the correction of the “p” value.
• In order to describe different plant communities, CCA ordinations with species composition (and similar plot size used in the study) and environmental conditions, are much more relevant than using the subjective idea of alliances.
• Is the DCA including the 400 releves? The presentation of figure 2A and 2b should improve. Titles for the axes in the case of DCA or title for the figures. Also, the quality is very low.
• The study is just a presentation of the information (that I considered with important limitations) using descriptive statistical tools.

        After some clarification with the design of the experiment and improvement in the presentation of the results, I will consider the manuscript more appropriate for a local journal base in the interest of the data that authors have been working in a collection of data but with unknown design of this data collection.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the comments issued by reviewer 3 on the interesting results obtained.

Objectives and hypotheses have been included as suggested.

The methodology has been corrected (statistics have been corrected)

Regarding the description of the new plant communities, the phytosociological method widely accepted by researchers has been strictly followed, the international code of nomenclature is applied, a method that is based not only on ecological aspects, since the composition is taken into account. floristics, bioclimatology, biogeography, catenal contacts, dynamism, etc.

The reviewer comments on the descriptive nature of the study, and therefore suggests that it be published in a local journal, he thinks that this work does not have international repercussions, with which we do not agree, since the study is carried out on the entire Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands, in this study not only plant associations are described, but also a new alliance for the Iberian Peninsula, and we bring the order Pinetalia to the Iberian territories. For this we have had to study the different syntaxons of Pinus halepensis in the eastern central Mediterranean, works that we have cited; Consequently, this work similarly lays the groundwork for further studies in the Western Mediterranean. We are also talking about communities of interest, since in Spain they had not been accepted until the publication of some previous works.

Regarding figures 2A and 2B they have been fixed and are now named as 1A and 1B

English has been reviewed by an expert native speakerFinal del formulario

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

General remarks:

The article is interesting and well conducted. The results are relevant and new associations are welcome, in particular for Pinus halepensis in the Iberian Peninsula where the presence is abundant (both natural and planted) and this study shed new light on this controversial issue. The author’s team is reliable and has enough experience to propose new sytanxa as these 4 new proposed here. The use of the ombroedaphoxeric index is fortunate and the results are well documented and coherent.  However, there is a critic concern with the new alliance proposed in this study that are in contradiction with the recent previous class and alliances published by Bonari et al., (Appl Veg Sci. 2020:1–37). Although this study is using a wide scale, the new sytaxonomic scheme is scientifically accepted and should be taken into consideration in the study proposed by Cano et al. as the area of distribution of this new systaxonomic scheme encompasses the Iberian Peninsula.

Within the alliances published in Bonari et al., 2020, it could be possible to find an equivalent for the new alliance (Rhamno lycioidis-Pinion halepensis all. nova hoc loco) proposed by the authors? Are they able to adapt the nomenclature or to establish any kind of synonymy? What is about other alliances proposed by Borani et al, 2020? Could be included any of the new association proposed in other alliances proposed by Bonari et al, 2020? If not, please, give arguments to not include them in this new sytanxonomic classification. The new Class Pinetea halepensis is accepted in this article. Please, do the authors agree to include all the associations stated in the article in this new Class?

 In my opinion, this interesting study needs major revision to adapt to the new syntaxonomic scheme.  The alternative is to refute the present classification (not recommended) but strong arguments should be stated.

Specific comments:

Title: If I am not wrong, the Balearic Islands are included in the study (see Fig. 4). In this case, there is a contradiction in the title. It could be possible to have a more coherent title? i.e.: Ecological and syntaxonomic analysis of Pinus halepensis Mill. in the Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands

Line 23: change ‘nd subseque..’ by ‘and subeque..’

Line 42: There is a reference to the Canary Islands and this area is not considered in the study. Besides, Flora Iberica does not consider P. canariensis as it is not native of the Iberian Peninsula. Please remove the sentence: ‘and  in the Caray Islands Pinus canariensis Sweet’.

Line 63: Reference of Pozo et al. (2010) seems to be wrong because there are not any reference to pollen sediments of Pinus at 10.5m in depth with holm oak, rock rose and heaths in this article.  An interesting and relevant study of this fossil pollen (pre-Holocene) in the present area of Pinus pinea is in Postigo-Mijarra et al, (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 295 (2010) 332–343).

Lines 160-161: The sentence seems to be incomplete: For the proposal of new syn-160 taxons, the phytosociological nomenclature code of Theurillat et al. [41] ‘is applied’?

Line 376: Change: Buxus baleárica by Buxus balearica.

Lines 573-554: Adapt to the new sytanxonomic scheme (here and all the references to the old classification along the text, i.e. Quercetea ilicis, etc.).  

References 39 and 65 are the same. This section needs a deep revision.

Line 415: references 69 and 70 are before than 56 to 68.

Line 424: references 66-68 are before than 56-65.

Reference 57 seems to be missing or not cited in the text.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the comments made by the reviewer, which have allowed us to improve the study.

All suggestions made have been taken into consideration.

- The added title “and Balearic Islands” is corrected, corrections that are also made in the abstract and in the text.

- The reference to Pinus canariensis is removed from the text and the reference Pozo et al. by Postigo-Mijarra et al.

- The work of Bonari et al. and included in references

In the summary it is corrected 'nd subseque..' by 'and subseque..'

To your question about whether we apply the phytosociological nomenclature code published by Theurillat et al., the authors inform you that it has indeed been used, we add the relevant articles to the text ((articles 3,10, 17,27 and 39 ICPN)

We have corrected Buxus balearica by Buxus balearica, it was a typo.

We have revised the syntaxonomic scheme and explained why the new alliance and the new associations are left for the moment in the Quercetea ilicis class.

All references have been checked and renumbered, and a few more references are included.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

  Although the author has made a considerable effort in improving the manuscript, the main concern about the manuscript remains, as it is the descriptive character of a particular data set with poor analysis and limited design of the experiment.   I will consider the manuscript more appropriate for a local journal base in the interest of the data that authors have been working with.

Reviewer 4 Report

The document has been improved and all the amendments and recommendations have been taken into consideration. I am happy to inform that the article can be published in its present form if the Editor considers it appropriate.