Can Paulownia Siebold & Zucc. Become an Invasive Species via Its Seeds?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe the article addresses a very important issue: invasive species. Understanding their biology allows for more effective control. In my opinion, the article is excellently prepared and should be accepted in its current form.

Author Response

Dear Opponent, thank you for your comments. In attachment, we explained our changes in our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor, Dear Authors,

I've read the manuscript Can Paulownia Siebold & Zucc. be an invasive species via its seeds?
To investigate invasive potential of natural species, cultivars and hybrids is important for the understanding of invasion biology. Paulownia is one of such species showing potential. I found the idea of the study nice. In the methods I miss a control or at least a statement which of these experiments is the most comparable to a control. My comments are meant for the improvement of the manuscript. Some parts seem obsolete to me, some parts in Results are presented in a non-standard way and should be rewritten. The discussion seems to be lacking a proper ending. Please find my comments below.
Detailed comments:
Title --> change ...be invasive... to ...become an invasive...
Abstract --> write Latin names in italic (throughout the msc)
Keywords --> delete "rage"
Introduction:
L.33 change "more" to several, numerous
L53 art?? unclear, is it meant artificial?
Fig1-->x-axis: unit is %; y-axis: write species names correctly e.g. P. tomentosa and in italic - correct that in the entire manuscript because otherwise it looks unprofessional to my opinion

Chapter 2.2 --> Change title to "The process of germination"

I would prefer if the way of writing species and cultivars would follow the more traditional ways e.g. P. tomentosa and not just Tomentosa. Correct it everywhere.
Fig2--> y-axis: change pcs to %; x-axis: change date into actual number of days, read my comment about how to write species names
L.145 --> name the statistical test (also elsewhere throughout the manuscript)
L155-188 unclear to me, how were these statistical groups formed, name the test. It is unusual to write results this way. Please do not use bullet points.
Discussion--> here the term "Germination capacity" appears, please use only terminology which was introduced in your paper. It's confusing for the reader. What is meant by that: germination rate, speed? Change to adequate terms throughout the entire discussion section.
L.238.. rephrase "sojourn" toe.g. brief period 
L.275-293 delete, obsolete
L294-305 this is not suitable for the Discussion, this should be section "Study species" in the section Methods.
L313 delete the sentence and use  "Cultivation types used in the study are listed below."
L315 and further on - A sentence shouldn't start with an abbreviation, write full names in such cases - correct throughout the entire manuscript

Germination energy seems obsolete to me, it doesn't give additional value to the germination rate, therefore, delete it
accordingly delete Fig 3.
L390-391 delete 
Discussion--> is doesn't look finished. Add what is the main outcome of the results, has any Paulownia type invasive potential according to seed germination, which type, compare with published work.

Author Response

Dear Opponent, thank you for your comments. In attachment, we explained our changes in our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The results of the study can contribute to the risk assessment of Paulownia species, which is especially important given that the species is listed on the EPPO Alert List. However, to assess whether a species is invasive, other species traits must also be taken into account, as well as the potential negative impacts of the plant on native species, habitats and ecosystems, on animal and human health, on infrastructure, etc. Given the above, this research cannot determine whether the investigated species are invasive or not. The research has shown that some species have the potential to spread. In this sense, the discussion and conclusions of the paper should be revised. Also, the title of the paper should be adjusted accordingly. The introduction lacks a brief overview of data on Paulownia seed germination. It is necessary to better emphasize what data are missing and to more clearly highlight the knowledge gap.

Specific comments and suggestions:

Lines 32-43: I suggest that authors shorten the section of the species taxonomy. I do not see how such detailed presentation of taxonomy is related to the species invasiveness. It would be sufficient to state the current taxonomic status.

Lines 57-67: Defining of these terms is not necessary. I suggest that authors shorten this section.

Line 69: “Essl, Stringer, Kleinbauer et al., Essl & Rabitsch and Marana” could be replaced with A number of authors ....or something similar.

Lines 73-74: “Longbrake, Snow, Lovenshimer & Madritch, Badalamenti, Chongpinitchai & Williams and Jakubowski” could be replaced with A number of studies ....or something similar.

Line 96: Please separate the temperature value from the unit symbol. This should be done throughout the text.

Line 98: The term variants is unusual in this context. Consider using term treatments.

Line 250: Please replace “created last year” with “were produced in the previous growing season“.

Line 251: The author names in the text “Graves, Graves & Stringer and Carpenter et al.” are unnecessary here, references are sufficient.

Line 253: The word “exceptionally” should be deleted and “up to three years” should be replaced with “within the first three years after seed production”.

Line 267: It is unclear what "used" refers to.

Lines 271-274: This sentence is unclear and difficult to follow and could be clarified.

Lines 277-289: There is no need to provide definitions here. Adding references would be sufficient.

Line 290: It is not clear what the “basic elements” refer to.

Lines 294-305: The context of this section is not clear. Presenting this information in full sentences rather than bullet points might improve clarity. Also, it would be helpful to clarify whether this intended to suggest species invasiveness. Currently this part mostly relies on literature data without linking it to the results of the present study. This part of the Discussion should be reformulated to better integrate study findings.

Line 308: The heading “Types of Paulownia” should be replaced with “Plant material”.

Line 313: The sentence “The following cultivation types were used:” can be omitted since next subheading already provides this information.

Line 343: [806 - typo.

Line 346: The heading “Description of the methodology” should be replaced with” Experimental setup” or “Experimental design”.

Lines 347-352: This section is unclear. It is not specified which procedure was repeated. Was it the seed collection? Does this imply that the number of replicates was six?

Lines 348-350: In the sentence “Pre-sowing treatment – three months before the beginning of the experiment –entailed the collection of 100 seeds of each individual Species/Hybrid from each seller (unit).” the part “Pre-sowing treatment –“ should be deleted since seed collection in not pre-sowing treatment.

Lines 353-354: The substrate used for germination should be specified. It is unclear whether filter paper was used as in other treatments.

Lines 377-383: The description of these parameters would be clearer if the formulas were provided instead of textual explanation. Please consider this for all parameters.

Line 390-391: Please delete.

Lines 409-410: Assessing the invasiveness of a species cannot rely only on seed germination data. Germination is an important parameter for estimating the species potential for spread, which is relevant to invasiveness. However, in order to carry out a risk assessment and to determine whether a species is invasive, other species traits must also be taken into account, as well as the potential negative impacts of the plant on native species, habitats and ecosystems, on animal and human health, on infrastructure, etc. In this context, conclusion about invasiveness of the species cannot be drown based on conducted research alone.

Figure 2. Course of germination of Paulownia: The graphs are somewhat difficult to read. If possible, their clarity could be improved.

Author Response

Dear Opponent, thank you for your comments. In attachment, we explained our changes in our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The paper is highly significant due to the importance of understanding the mechanisms of invasive species. It is methodologically well structured, with the application of appropriate methodology, and is written in a very clear and accessible language.

• In lines 249–250, please consider the following proposed sentence construction: All the seeds used in this study were produced last year and therefore should have the highest germination capacity.
• In line 398 of the manuscript, has the text been repeated by mistake?

Author Response

Dear Opponent, thank you for your comments. In attachment, we explained our changes in our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf