Ecological Characterization of the Flora in Reserva Ecológica Arenillas, Ecuador

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Ecological characterization of the flora of a tropical dry forest:  Reserva Ecológica Arenillas, Ecuador

1.     I have been through the manuscript thoroughly, the article aims to explore the diversity/composition of plant species in tropical dry forest of  Reserva Ecológica Arenillas, Ecuador.  A lot of relevant literature is cited in support by the authors claims.

2.     The manuscript is well structured and conveys a clear message. Further, I do not see any bigger issues within the MS text or results but would suggest the following minor changes before acceptance

3.     What is the novelty of the work it is unclear and claims like “Knowledge of the flora and its ecological characteristics is still limited, which is one of the main objectives of this work” is not enough. I suggest objectives must be laid out early on and clearly, and must capitalize on one or few ideas only. If the aim of this MS was to document the plant species/communities only; that has been known for some time the authors have referred to this fact and have cited some literature where nearly similar work has already been carried out e.g. see bibliographic section.

4.     Similarly, the conclusion needs to be integrated into solid futuristic guidelines. At the moment it is lacking in the MS so that may be followed/applied for similar or somewhat similar areas.

5.     What is the reason/logic behind “In this study, 118 plots of 20 m x 20 m surface area were sampled at different points of the REAr (Figure 1)” why only 118 sites were selected and were they at random or these sites were desirable due to some unique characteristics. Add relevant details of this within appropriate section/s.

6.     There are incomplete information below figures (above figure captions) e.g. hclust ward.D and others. Provide some details in the figure caption, as it is unclear.

7.     Shannon's index and Simpson's index need to written in one way ONLY throughout the text, correct it especially when given along figures.

8.     Cluster dendrograms are of poor resolution and hardly anything can be perceived from these figures. Replace it with clear images that may help reader to understand the study outcomes.

9.     Similarity index needs to be checked and it should follow the journal and scientific norms.

Decision:

While the study is within the scope of the journal, and information may be handy and of wider interest. The MS may be accepted for publication after Minor revisions. Incorporation of the same may be ensured by the editorial/journal team before final publication.  

Author Response

Punto 1: He revisado el manuscrito a fondo, el artículo tiene como objetivo explorar la diversidad/composición de especies de plantas en el bosque seco tropical de la Reserva Ecológica Arenillas, Ecuador. Se cita una gran cantidad de literatura relevante en apoyo de las afirmaciones de los autores.

Respuesta 1: Muchas gracias, nos alegra que te haya gustado el manuscrito.

Punto 2: El manuscrito está bien estructurado y transmite un mensaje claro. Además, no veo ningún problema mayor en el texto o los resultados de MS, pero sugeriría los siguientes cambios menores antes de la aceptación.

Respuesta 2: Tendremos en cuenta tus sugerencias.

Point 3: What is the novelty of the work it is unclear and claims like “Knowledge of the flora and its ecological characteristics is still limited, which is one of the main objectives of this work” is not enough. I suggest objectives must be laid out early on and clearly, and must capitalize on one or few ideas only. If the aim of this MS was to document the plant species/communities only; that has been known for some time the authors have referred to this fact and have cited some literature where nearly similar work has already been carried out e.g. see bibliographic section.

Response 3: The novelty of the work has been explained.

Point 4: Similarly, the conclusion needs to be integrated into solid futuristic guidelines. At the moment it is lacking in the MS so that may be followed/applied for similar or somewhat similar areas.

Response 4: Done.

Point 5: What is the reason/logic behind “In this study, 118 plots of 20 m x 20 m surface area were sampled at different points of the REAr (Figure 1)” why only 118 sites were selected and were they at random or these sites were desirable due to some unique characteristics. Add relevant details of this within appropriate section/s.

Response 5: In the new texto the information on why this number of plots has been selected has been expanded.

Point 6: There are incomplete information below figures (above figure captions) e.g. hclust ward.D and others. Provide some details in the figure caption, as it is unclear

Response 6: Done.

Point 7: Shannon's index and Simpson's index need to written in one way ONLY throughout the text, correct it especially when given along figures.

Response 7: Done.

Point 8: Cluster dendrograms are of poor resolution and hardly anything can be perceived from these figures. Replace it with clear images that may help reader to understand the study outcomes.

Response 8: Done.

Point 9: Similarity index needs to be checked and it should follow the journal and scientific norms.

Response 9: Done.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The research paper provides original and significant content

The quality of presentation and the scientific soundness are very well illustrated.

Best regards

Author Response

Point 1: I have been through the manuscript thoroughly, the article aims to explore the diversity/composition of plant species in tropical dry forest of  Reserva Ecológica Arenillas, Ecuador.  A lot of relevant literature is cited in support by the authors claims.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your comments, we are glad that you find this manuscript interesting.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dr. Zahid Ullah (Reviewer) comments on manuscript No. applsci-1833176

1.       The work done in the manuscript is valuable in terms of the need for biodiversity studies in the scenario of climate change when such studies appear as scares in science. However, the authors need to fully address the issues problems in the MS.

2.       Line 2.   If the authors agree, the title may be changed as “Ecological characterization of the flora of Reserva Ecologica Arenillas, Ecuador”

3.       Line 18.            Remove “-“after 34

4.       Line 23.            Check the spelling of chamephytes

5.       Abstract           The Abstract mostly contains introduction to study area and ecosystems. Methods of study are absent in abstract. Include your key findings in abstract, like values of diversity indices, and dominant families etc.

6.       Line33             word “part” be changed as proportion, and whether it is (1.600) or 1600?

7.       Line 37             Check spelling of South America?

8.       Line 142           Check the spelling Malvacea

9.       In the methodology section, give details of how the plant species were identified, cite reference flora of the region. Also, it should be mentioned, which database or databases were followed for the nomenclature of scientific names? E.g World Flora Online http://www.worldfloraonline.org/, or Plants of the World Online, Kew Science https://powo.science.kew.org/.

10.   The authors should also mention in methodology about placement of species in Botanical families. It will be useful to follow the family relationships in accordance with APG-IV classification.

11.   Details of voucher specimens submitted to Herbarium is also not clear.

12.   Line 231           Check spelling of Fabaceae.

13.   Line 243           Camelephytes? Check spelling

14.   In Table 1, double check for the correct authorities of scientific names, by consulting one of the standard taxonomic databases mentioned in comment no. 8.

15.   Elaborate the discussion by mentioning the dominant and indicator species in each ecosystem.

16.   Please thoroughly check the spelling of scientific names and authorities throughout the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Point 1: The work done in the manuscript is valuable in terms of the need for biodiversity studies in the scenario of climate change when such studies appear as scares in science. However, the authors need to fully address the issues problems in the MS.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your review, we will try to resolve all the issues raised.

Point 2: Line 2.   If the authors agree, the title may be changed as “Ecological characterization of the flora of Reserva Ecologica Arenillas, Ecuador”

Response 2: We think its management is appropriateand we change the title.

Point 3: Line 18.            Remove “-“after 34

Response 3: Done.

Point 4: Line 23.            Check the spelling of chamephytes

Response 4: Done

Point 5: Abstract           The Abstract mostly contains introduction to study area and ecosystems. Methods of study are absent in abstract. Include your key findings in abstract, like values of diversity indices, and dominant families etc.

Response 5: Done

Point 6: Line33             word “part” be changed as proportion, and whether it is (1.600) or 1600?

Response 6: Allor the format of the numbering has been changed.

Point 7: Line 37             Check spelling of South America?

Response 7: Done.

Point 8: Line 142           Check the spelling Malvacea

Response 8: Done.

Point 9: In the methodology section, give details of how the plant species were identified, cite reference flora of the region. Also, it should be mentioned, which database or databases were followed for the nomenclature of scientific names? E.g World Flora Online http://www.worldfloraonline.org/, or Plants of the World Online, Kew Science https://powo.science.kew.org/.

Response 9: Done.

Point 10: The authors should also mention in methodology about placement of species in Botanical families. It will be useful to follow the family relationships in accordance with APG-IV classification.

Response 10: Done.

Point 11: Details of voucher specimens submitted to Herbarium is also not clear.

Response 11: Done.

Point 12: Line 231           Check spelling of Fabaceae.

Response 12: Done.

Point 13: Line 243           Camelephytes? Check spelling

Response 13: Done

Point 14: In Table 1, double check for the correct authorities of scientific names, by consulting one of the standard taxonomic databases mentioned in comment no. 8.

Response 14: Done.

Point 15: Elaborate the discussion by mentioning the dominant and indicator species in each ecosystem.

Response 15: Done.

Point 16: Please thoroughly check the spelling of scientific names and authorities throughout the manuscript.

Response 16: Done.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors intend to analyze the ecological characterization of the flora in a tropical dry forest at Reserva Ecológica Arenillas, Ecuador by using data from 118 plots. The results are simple and clear, while the language and expression were poor and should be carefully checked and improved by native speaker or language company. Manuscript was not quite ready and needs to be improved rigorously. Some comments are listed below.

1.   The authors should follow the international numerical practice for numbers. Use commas to separate thousand groups when encountering a large number.

2.   Citing number in the MS should be in bold font or regular font? However, they should be consistent with each other.

3.   Line 33 same as question 1. Please follow the international numerical practice. I think it should be 1,600.

4.   Line 33-35: Are there any references related to the total species number and increased number listed IUCN Red List. Please cite them. I imagine they are not the original data in your current study.

5.   Line 47. It was a military base 47 and exclusion zone since the 1970s…  It is a grammatical mistake. Please carefully check the full MS.

6.   Line 55. I think it is a poor expression. “Describe” can lead to misunderstanding. I think document is better than describe.

7.   Line 57. Should be changed as：since it is a poorly studied region from the floristic point of view.

8.   Line 59. Area

9.   Line 76. 3°27'30.94" S to 3°39'37.49" S and 80° 9'18.65" W to 80° 9'47.93" 76 W.

10.  Line 78. m.a.s.l.???

11. Line 80. 300-500 mm/year. It should not be hyphen between 300 and 500.

12. Line 107-109. If these abbreviations follow Index Herbariorum, you should cite that.

13. Line 136. with R software version 4.2.1. 136 [20] should be stated in line 132.

14. Line 139. Here was “381 plant species belonging to 77 families”, but line 105-106 you said that ”This work 105 lists 291 species from 64 families”. I can’t follow the author’s logic. REAr??

15. Line 147. Are you sure it is the list of vascular plants? I do not find any ferns and lycophyte in your list. I am not familiar with flora in Ecuador, but there should have a higher fern diversity. Table 1 is too long and I suggest the authors put it in the supplement materials.

16. Line 161. The table header should be put forward to the table.

17. Line 165. Hese??

18. Line 167. Annex 1 should be supplement 1.

19. Line 170. Fig. 2 should be consistent with Figure 1 and the same with the latter figures.

20. Line 173. types III and I.

21. Line 174-175. There should be a space before and after the multiplication sign

22.  Line 182. The Abbreviation of international standard should be used in unit symbol.

23. Line 213. REAr??

24. Line 214-216, Line 228-229 and line 242-244. they are the same as some of the result part.

25. Line 219. [21]–[23].??? Line 228. [25], [26].??

26. Line 232. 2006,,

Author Response

Point 1: The authors should follow the international numerical practice for numbers. Use commas to separate thousand groups when encountering a large number.

Response 1: Done.

Point 2: Citing number in the MS should be in bold font or regular font? However, they should be consistent with each other.

Response 2: Done.

Point 3: Line 33 same as question 1. Please follow the international numerical practice. I think it should be 1,600

Response 3: Done.

Point 4: Line 33-35: Are there any references related to the total species number and increased number listed IUCN Red List. Please cite them. I imagine they are not the original data in your current study.

Response 4: Done.

Point 5: Line 47. It was a military base 47 and exclusion zone since the 1970s…  It is a grammatical mistake. Please carefully check the full MS.

Response 5: Done.

Point 6: Line 55. I think it is a poor expression. “Describe” can lead to misunderstanding. I think document is better than describe.

Response 6: Done.

Point 7: Line 57. Should be changed as：since it is a poorly studied region from the floristic point of view.

Response 7: Done.

Point 8: Line 59. Area

Response 8: Done.

Point 9: Line 76. 3°27'30.94" S to 3°39'37.49" S and 80° 9'18.65" W to 80° 9'47.93" 76 W.

Response 9: Done.

Point 10: Line 78. m.a.s.l.???

Response 10: Done.

Point 11: Line 80. 300-500 mm/year. It should not be hyphen between 300 and 500.

Response 11: Done.

Point 12: Line 107-109. If these abbreviations follow Index Herbariorum, you should cite that.

Response 12: Done.

Point 13: Line 136. with R software version 4.2.1. 136 [20] should be stated in line 132.

Response 13: Done.

Point 14: Line 139. Here was “381 plant species belonging to 77 families”, but line 105-106 you said that ”This work 105 lists 291 species from 64 families”. I can’t follow the author’s logic. REAr??

Response 14: Done. The phrase hasbeen rewritten.  291 species was the last research conducted by Molina in 2018, this study recorded the 381 species within 77 families.

Point 15: Line 147. Are you sure it is the list of vascular plants? I do not find any ferns and lycophyte in your list. I am not familiar with flora in Ecuador, but there should have a higher fern diversity. Table 1 is too long and I suggest the authors put it in the supplement materials.

Response 15: There are two species of Pteridaceae that are ferns, it is very rare to observe ferns because it is a dry forest and rainfall is scarce, an average of 350 mm per year.  We consider that the table should go in the main document because it is the main result of our work.

Point 16: Line 161. The table header should be put forward to the table.

Response 16: Done.

Point 17: Line 165. Hese??

Response 17: Done.

Point 18: Line 167. Annex 1 should be supplement 1.

Response 18: Done.

Point 19: Line 170. Fig. 2 should be consistent with Figure 1 and the same with the latter figures.

Response 19: Done

Point 20: Line 173. types III and I.

Response 20: Done.

Point 21: Line 174-175. There should be a space before and after the multiplication sign

Response 21: Done.

Point 22: Line 182. The Abbreviation of international standard should be used in unit symbol.

Response 22: Done.

Point 23: Line 213. REAr??

Response 23: Done.

Point 24: Line 214-216, Line 228-229 and line 242-244. they are the same as some of the result part.

Response 24: Paragraph fo has been rewrittento improve its understanding.

Point 25: Line 219. [21]–[23].??? Line 228. [25], [26].??

Response 25: Done.

Point 26: Line 232. 2006,,

Response 26: Done.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have revised all the comments which I care about. I suggested accept in present form.