Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is good, only some comments for the better it

- Include the author's name of the species the first time it appears in the text (only the first time).

- If the genus is simplified from the second time the species is written, do so in all cases and for all species.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Thank you very much for you valuable time to review our manuscript. Please find the corresponding corrections with Track changes in the re-submitted file.

 Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Include the author's name of the species the first time it appears in the text (only the first time).

If the genus is simplified from the second time the species is written, do so in all cases and for all species.

Thank you for your careful proposal for standardisation, indeed we have only included the auctor for Bothriochloa ischaaemum as requested earlier, now we have added it for all the species mentioned.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Abstract and Introduction:This article presents a clear introduction to the research background, which delves into the impact of the invasive alien plant species, Bothriochloa ischaemum, on the plant diversity of the Pannonian sandy grassland. The author conducted field investigations and statistical analyses to assess the impact of this species on grassland vegetation across various environmental conditions. The article boasts a clear backdrop and well-defined arguments, offering readers an effective framework for understanding how invasive alien species influence ecosystem health. However, despite the background section of the article emphasizing the significance of the research, the depiction of the ecological mechanisms underlying B. ischaemum invasion appears somewhat cursory and devoid of a comprehensive theoretical framework. For instance, quantifying the competitiveness of B. ischaemum across various ecological conditions may necessitate additional scholarly support. It is recommended to delve deeper into this section, particularly by integrating the current trends in climate change, to analyze the interplay between invasive species and climate change.
2. Materials and Methods: The author chose three distinct ecological environments (sand dune wetlands, the sides of sand dunes, and abandoned farmland), establishing multiple plots within each vegetation community type to guarantee spatial diversity in the research.The study employed suitable statistical methods, including hierarchical clustering analysis and the Kruskal-Wallis test, to analyze species composition and diversity indices, adhering to rigorous methodological standards. It is reasonable to employ hierarchical clustering analysis to assess the clustering relationships among vegetation types; however, the article fails to elaborate on the rationale behind selecting this method in detail. It is recommended to offer more specifics regarding data preprocessing and model selection, particularly when analyzing species diversity. A more in-depth discussion is warranted on whether the functional community differences among species, as well as the interactions with other ecological factors, have been considered.
3. Results: The article clearly presents, through charts, the coverage of B. ischaemum in various vegetation types and its correlation with species diversity.Through a comparative analysis of various vegetation types, the study revealed that B. ischaemum exerts a notable influence on reduced diversity, particularly in sand dune wetlands where its dominant position becomes even more pronounced. However, the interpretation of the results is overly simplistic: while the results suggest that B. ischaemum impacts species diversity, the article fails to adequately delve into the underlying ecological mechanisms. For instance, how do B. ischaemum's rapid reproductive capacity, root traits, and competitive edge in arid environments specifically influence other herbaceous species?
4. Discussion: The article failed to fully compare studies in other similar regions and lacked comparative analysis. For example, the invasion and ecological impact of B. ischaemum in other regions or different types of grasslands may vary, and this section of the discussion can further enrich the content of the article. It is recommended toto enhance the discussion on management measures (such as grazing management) in the article and provide more practical management suggestions. And add a discussion on future research directions in the article, especially how to address the challenges of invasive species in the context of climate change.

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

 

The authors would like to thank you for your critique and valuable suggestions on the manuscript. Please find the responses below and the related corrections in track changes in the uploaded file.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Abstract and Introduction: This article presents a clear introduction to the research background, which delves into the impact of the invasive alien plant species, Bothriochloa ischaemum, on the plant diversity of the Pannonian sandy grassland. The author conducted field investigations and statistical analyses to assess the impact of this species on grassland vegetation across various environmental conditions. The article boasts a clear backdrop and well-defined arguments, offering readers an effective framework for understanding how invasive alien species influence ecosystem health. However, despite the background section of the article emphasizing the significance of the research, the depiction of the ecological mechanisms underlying B. ischaemum invasion appears somewhat cursory and devoid of a comprehensive theoretical framework. For instance, quantifying the competitiveness of B. ischaemum across various ecological conditions may necessitate additional scholarly support. It is recommended to delve deeper into this section, particularly by integrating the current trends in climate change, to analyze the interplay between invasive species and climate change.

The introduction of a topic is always a crucial and perhaps the most diverse part of an article in terms of the aspects that are brought together. This is not better reflected by the fact that during the first submission one of the reviewers did not consider the parts related to climate change as relevant and to be mitigated and the areas of landscape change to be increased, similarly to the detailed line of the plant physiological parts. Changes were made according to that suggestion. However, the detailed discussion on ecological background may fulfil the request.

1. Materials and Methods: The author chose three distinct ecological environments (sand dune wetlands, the sides of sand dunes, and abandoned farmland), establishing multiple plots within each vegetation community type to guarantee spatial diversity in the research. The study employed suitable statistical methods, including hierarchical clustering analysis and the Kruskal-Wallis test, to analyze species composition and diversity indices, adhering to rigorous methodological standards. It is reasonable to employ hierarchical clustering analysis to assess the clustering relationships among vegetation types; however, the article fails to elaborate on the rationale behind selecting this method in detail. It is recommended to offer more specifics regarding data preprocessing and model selection, particularly when analyzing species diversity. A more in-depth discussion is warranted on whether the functional community differences among species, as well as the interactions with other ecological factors, have been considered.

The Materials and Methods was supplemented by a detailed description on method selection and functional ecological aspects.

1. Results: The article clearly presents, through charts, the coverage of B. ischaemum in various vegetation types and its correlation with species diversity. Through a comparative analysis of various vegetation types, the study revealed that B. ischaemum exerts a notable influence on reduced diversity, particularly in sand dune wetlands where its dominant position becomes even more pronounced. However, the interpretation of the results is overly simplistic: while the results suggest that B. ischaemum impacts species diversity, the article fails to adequately delve into the underlying ecological mechanisms. For instance, how do B. ischaemum's rapid reproductive capacity, root traits, and competitive edge in arid environments specifically influence other herbaceous species?

Thank you for the suggestion to provide better context, to fulfil the request the Discussion was supplemented by aspects and characteristics that support B. ischaemum over native species.

1. Discussion: The article failed to fully compare studies in other similar regions and lacked comparative analysis. For example, the invasion and ecological impact of B. ischaemum in other regions or different types of grasslands may vary, and this section of the discussion can further enrich the content of the article. It is recommended to enhance the discussion on management measures (such as grazing management) in the article and provide more practical management suggestions. And add a discussion on future research directions in the article, especially how to address the challenges of invasive species in the context of climate change.

Thank you for the suggestion. we inserted references on management measures. To provide a comparative analysis on regions and different habitats we are planning to write a review article on the species so we would like to stay with a discussion closely related to our findings on a specific vegetation type.

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.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article studies the impact of the invasion of Bothriochloa ischaemum on the diversity of sandy grasslands. It has a clear research direction, but the article is less innovative and some of the content is not very clear and logical. Please make substantial revisions. The specific revisions are as follows:

1. Line 21, the concept of "lake man-induced landscape change" is too general, and it is recommended to be briefly explained.

2. Line 24, what does "internal structure" mean? Please make it clear and unambiguous.

3. Line 29, it is recommended to include specific data to support the research conclusions.

4. The first and second paragraphs of the introduction discuss the impact of climate change, but this does not seem to be the most relevant research background for the study. The author should consider other aspects, such as the impact of species invasion on landscape diversity.

5. The introduction is rich in content but has a strong sense of patchwork. The logic between paragraphs is not strong. Please revise the content integration. The third paragraph specifically describes the photosynthesis efficiency, reproduction ability and impact on soil nutrient cycle of B. ischaemum, but the next four consecutive paragraphs are descriptions of other contents until the eighth paragraph, line 114, which seems to summarize the competitive advantage of B. ischaemum.

6. In the introduction, please focus on the research innovation.

7. Line 165, Figure 1 lacks a legend 8. Line 377, it is recommended to add experimental data to support the description of "causing species poverty and reducing diversity"

9. The discussion section can be expanded to explore how to control invasive species and restore ecosystems, and how it is different from other studies

10. The conclusion section contains more information. It is recommended to extract the most critical conclusions

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors provide a descriptive analysis of an invasive species, B. ischaemum, in a sandy grassland site in the Carpathian Basin. A series of 2x2 plots were measured for vegetation cover, and then the authors report the coverage values. My major concern is that the methods and results (as reported) do not align with the objective/four hypotheses, which means that the authors cannot do what they claim to do in the paper nor can they draw any firm conclusions about the hypotheses they pose. Other concerns are detailed below.

Abstract:

More information is needed on Bothriochloa ischaemum since many readers will not be familiar with this species. What ecosystems is it invading? What harms does it cause? Why is it being studied?

The statements in the abstract need to be clearer. For instance, the sentence on line 23-24 needs to specify whether the internal structure is referring to the grasslands or the invasive specie.

The abstract does not provide any indication of what was done beyond sampling. An abstract should include details of the methodology.

Introduction:

The introduction needs to be streamlined to support the objectives and give the reader a solid justification as to why this study is being conducted. Notably, the opening paragraph is not needed as readers of this journal do not need to be educated about LULC. Similarly, the discussion of water use efficiency in grassland species is overly specific at this stage in the paper since the authors have not yet set up what the focus is or what is being studied. The introduction needs to better frame the topic and support the overall objective (which is not clear).

The introduction needs to introduce the readers to the species of focus, much like in the Abstract.

Line 75: Species, by definition, do not just ‘become invasive’ in their native environments. Please clarify this statement and the others that follow.

The introduction is missing a clear objective statement, so it is not clear what the authors are attempting to do in this study.

H2: the authors need to explain how they are defining ‘internal structure’

Figure 1: it is not clear where the study area is located on the map on the left, nor is it clear what the reader is looking at on the right and whether the study area is just the star or the entire area. Since the map is showing topography, a legend is needed for the reader to understand the elevation range. However, a more informative map would should different land covers (e.g., grasslands, forests, agriculture, etc.)

Methods:

The methods do not permit testing of the four hypotheses. Specifically, for H1, no data or methods for measuring land use change (which requires at least two time periods of data) were provided so this hypothesis cannot be tested. H2 requires measurement of ‘internal structure’ but no information was provided for what that means or how it will be measured. H3 requires data on the ‘spread’ of B. ischaemum, which again requires data to be collected at multiple time periods. It does not appear this happened nor were multiple time steps of data reported. H4 requires information on site conditions, of which none was provided in the methods.

More broadly, the methods need to be written in a way such that another person could replicate them exactly at another site or recreate this same study if they wanted to. To that end, more details are needed in terms of where the plots are located in the study area, how they were selected and located, when the data were collected, how coverage was measured, etc.

The analytical methods (verbatim) include (1) explore association differences, (2) compare community composition, and (3) [analyze] coverage, diversity, and conservation category. These analytical methods do not address the four hypotheses so it is impossible for the authors to achieve their objective.

Results

Line 207: The authors mention here there is ‘significant’ separation. However, it is not clear which statistical test was used to determine that the distance is significant or at what level it is significant.

Section 3.2.4. and 3.2.5.: The authors are unable to make statements about ‘impact’ because neither their sampling design nor their analytical approach permits such a causal analysis. At most, they can claim there is an observed relationship.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing was a bit hard to follow, particularly throughout the introduction. In general, the authors can improve the writing by ensuring there are clear transitions between topics/paragraphs and internal consistency within paragraphs and sentences, with clear topic sentences and supporting information. Paragraphs should have at least three sentences (and typically no more than 8 sentences).  

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Check the spaces before bibliographic citations

Figure 8 looks too small

Line spacing in conclusion section

It would be more correct to include the author of the plant species. The author of the scientific name is only written the first time the scientific name is written in the text.