The Teaching of the Phytosociological Method for the Description of New Syntaxons: The Case of Costa Tropical—Granada Province, Andalusia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a valuable integration of phytosociological research with active teaching methodologies, applied to wetland vegetation on Spain’s Tropical Coast. The study identifies three new plant associations and underscores the educational potential of field-based phytosociology. While the topic is relevant and the approach innovative, the paper requires significant revisions to meet international scientific standards in clarity, structure, and methodological rigor.

1, The abstract should be restructured to clearly state: objectives, methods, key results, and implications. Currently, it is overly descriptive and lacks focus.

2, The historical overview is lengthy and could be condensed to focus more on the research gap and objectives.

3, The link between phytosociology and active teaching methodologies should be more clearly articulated early on.

4, The description of field sampling, plot selection, and statistical analysis is insufficient. More detail is needed on: Criteria for plot homogeneity and size determination. Justification for the use of PAST 4.03 and specific clustering algorithms. How the Shannon_H index was applied and interpreted in the context of conservation status.

5, The inclusion of bibliographic data (e.g., Rivas-Martínez et al., 1980) as part of the dataset should be explicitly justified.

6, The presentation of new associations is a strength, but the supporting tables (e.g., Tables 3–7) are difficult to interpret. Consider summarizing key diagnostic species and ecological conditions in a more accessible format.

7, Figures (e.g., cluster analyses) are poorly labeled and lack explanatory captions. They should be redrawn for clarity and include axis labels, units, and a clear explanation of groupings.

8, The discussion should more critically address the novelty and biogeographical significance of the new syntaxa.

9, The proposed correlation between syntaxon rank and biogeographic category is interesting but speculative. This should be framed as a hypothesis rather than a conclusion.

10, The application of the Shannon_H index to assess conservation status is innovative but not well validated. The authors should acknowledge the limitations of this approach and cite supporting literature.

11, The manuscript contains numerous grammatical errors, inconsistent terminology, and awkward phrasing. Professional English editing is strongly recommended. Avoid informal expressions (e.g., “a form of scientific literacy”).

12, Some references are incomplete or incorrectly formatted (e.g., missing titles, volume numbers). Ensure consistency with journal guidelines.

13, Tables 1 and 2 are redundant with the main text and could be moved to a supplementary file. Figures 1 and 2 are simplistic and do not add scientific value. Consider removing or improving them.

Author Response

REPLY REVIEWER1

 Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a valuable integration of phytosociological research with active teaching methodologies, applied to wetland vegetation on Spain’s Tropical Coast. The study identifies three new plant associations and underscores the educational potential of field-based phytosociology. While the topic is relevant and the approach innovative, the paper requires significant revisions to meet international scientific standards in clarity, structure, and methodological rigor.

1, The abstract should be restructured to clearly state: objectives, methods, key results, and implications. Currently, it is overly descriptive and lacks focus.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your feedback. The summary has been restructured based on the reviewers' suggestions.

2, The historical overview is lengthy and could be condensed to focus more on the research gap and objectives.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment.Text has been removed to shorten the historical overview, and new text has been added to clarify the research gap and key objectives.

3, The link between phytosociology and active teaching methodologies should be more clearly articulated early on.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment.The new text “Phytosociological research, widely expanded in Europe, is essentially based on field inventory, which implies an active working method that fully connects with active teaching methodologies” has been included.

4, The description of field sampling, plot selection, and statistical analysis is insufficient. More detail is needed on: Criteria for plot homogeneity and size determination. Justification for the use of PAST 4.03 and specific clustering algorithms. How the Shannon_H index was applied and interpreted in the context of conservation status.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment.New text has been added clarifying how the sampling plots are selected: “The sampling plots are selected based on the physiognomic homogeneity of the community, which means that the plot must be ecologically homogeneous. The minimum area is determined first for plot size.” The interpretation of the Sahannon_H index and the use of PAST4.03 follow the guidelines of Cano-Ortiz et al. (see section 10).

5, The inclusion of bibliographic data (e.g., Rivas-Martínez et al., 1980) as part of the dataset should be explicitly justified.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment.The bibliographic data obtained from Rivas-Martínez et al., 1980; Loidi et al., 1997; and Molina, 1996 (Tables 1 and 2) were used to conduct a comparative analysis with associations similar to those studied in Costa Tropical.

6, The presentation of new associations is a strength, but the supporting tables (e.g., Tables 3–7) are difficult to interpret. Consider summarizing key diagnostic species and ecological conditions in a more accessible format.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment.The supporting tables cannot be modified, as they are fundamental for establishing new associations, which is common practice in all national and international phytosociological studies, and is endorsed by the Code of Nomenclature.

7, Figures (e.g., cluster analyses) are poorly labeled and lack explanatory captions. They should be redrawn for clarity and include axis labels, units, and a clear explanation of groupings.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment.In Figure 6, we clarify the meaning of the abbreviations LmJa and HJa, which represent two groups that are compared in the discussion section. LmJa = Lino maritimi–Juncetum acuti; HJa = Holoschoeno–Juncetum acuti (Rivas Martínez 1980). Figure 9 clarifies the abbreviations used in the cluster associations, and the different groups are explained in the text.

8, The discussion should more critically address the novelty and biogeographical significance of the new syntaxa.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment.Information included to further clarify the importance of understanding the new plant communities and their biogeographical location. “The newly described associations are located within the Alpujarra-Gador biogeographical sector. Their importance lies in being wetland communities of interest to birdlife, but they are subject to high tourist pressure that is destroying these communities. This could be remedied through mosaic development, which involves combining development and conservation. This can be achieved by respecting areas of botanical and ecological interest.”

9, The proposed correlation between syntaxon rank and biogeographic category is interesting but speculative. This should be framed as a hypothesis rather than a conclusion.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment.Information included to clarify the possible correlation between biogeographic and syntaxonomic rank systems. “This is clearly a hypothesis based on the greater or lesser extent of species distribution. Considering whether a species is stenoecious or euryecious, its distribution area will be smaller or larger. Furthermore, if we consider the subordination system of syntaxonomic ranks—the first rank being the subassociation included within the association, and this within the suballiance, alliance, order, and class—it is evident that there must be a close correlation between the syntaxonomic and biogeographic rank systems. All of this implies that further specific research on species distribution should be conducted.”

10, The application of the Shannon_H index to assess conservation status is innovative but not well validated. The authors should acknowledge the limitations of this approach and cite supporting literature.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment.Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment. The use of the Shannon-H index is correct and is used in a large number of diversity studies. In this case, there are no limitations, except for the lack of knowledge about the characteristic and companion species of the plant community. Therefore, it is important that students and researchers understand the meaning of characteristic and companion species, know how to identify them, and investigate their distribution. This is a topic we have already studied in Cano-Ortiz, A.; Musarella, C.M.; Piñar Fuentes, J.C.; Pinto Gomes, C.J.; del Río, S.; Cano, E. Diversity and Conservation Status of Mangrove Communities in Two Large Areas in Central America. Current Science, 2018, 115(3), 534-540.

11, The manuscript contains numerous grammatical errors, inconsistent terminology, and awkward phrasing. Professional English editing is strongly recommended. Avoid informal expressions (e.g., “a form of scientific literacy”).

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment.The manuscript is undergoing English linguistic corrections by a native speaker.

12, Some references are incomplete or incorrectly formatted (e.g., missing titles, volume numbers). Ensure consistency with journal guidelines.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment.All references have been reviewed and adapted to the journal's guidelines.

13, Tables 1 and 2 are redundant with the main text and could be moved to a supplementary file. Figures 1 and 2 are simplistic and do not add scientific value. Consider removing or improving them.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment.We have created a section with supplementary material that includes Tables 1 and 2. Furthermore, given their potential interest to students, we have also added Figures 1 and 2 to the supplementary material, thus avoiding their removal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript offers a fresh and timely contribution that nicely bridges vegetation ecology with environmental education. The authors do a great job weaving the classic phytosociological approach—a cornerstone of vegetation science—into modern student-centered, project-based learning. This blend makes the study stand out, showing how real plant-community research can double as hands-on teaching in higher education. The work centers on the Costa Tropical region in southern Spain, where students got involved in actual fieldwork and data crunching, ultimately describing three new plant associations. That double payoff—pedagogical and scientific—lends the paper real originality. It fits squarely with today’s push for experiential and field-based ecological training, and could easily be adapted elsewhere in Europe or beyond. The manuscript fits well within the aims and scope of Land, especially regarding vegetation science, habitat conservation, and educational innovation

The methods are solid and well executed. Using phytosociological relevés, cluster analysis in PAST 4.03, and Shannon diversity indices to gauge community structure and conservation status is sound and clearly laid out. The treatment of the Hca/Hco ratio as a quantitative indicator of ecosystem health is particularly interesting and innovative. That said, a couple of clarifications would tighten things up. The justification for naming new syntaxa could tie more explicitly to the latest International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature (Theurillat et al., 2021). A deeper comparison of their relevés with existing associations from nearby Mediterranean areas would also help highlight what makes these new communities distinct. These are minor points, though—the overall design and analysis hold together coherently and fully back the conclusions.

What sets the manuscript apart is how it folds phytosociology into an educational context. The method has a long, respected history in European vegetation science, but its teaching potential is rarely tapped. Here, the authors show students picking up both scientific know-how and practical skills by applying the Braun-Blanquet approach in the field. It enriches ecology education and vegetation research alike. Describing three new associations (Lino maritimi–Juncetum acuti, Halimione portulacoidis–Phragmitetum australis, and Cynancho acuti–Typhetum dominguensis) adds solid scientific weight, especially since these wetlands matter for coastal conservation and management.

The paper flows logically from introduction to conclusions. The intro gives enough background, though the educational angle could be stated more upfront. Methods and results are well organized with the right level of detail, and the discussion ties findings back to both teaching and ecology effectively. The English is clear and professional, but a few sentences still carry a slight Spanish phrasing—nothing major, just light polishing needed. Figures and tables are helpful, though some (especially the vegetation tables and dendrograms) could be sharper in resolution and layout. A simple diagram outlining the teaching-research workflow would make it easier for non-specialists to follow.

This will appeal to anyone in vegetation science, biodiversity conservation, or higher-ed pedagogy. It offers a practical template for blending old-school ecological tools with inquiry-based, project-driven teaching. Other programs looking to beef up field ecology could run with this. By proving the Braun-Blanquet method can still deliver new science and learning outcomes, the paper links tradition to modern challenges in ecological training. It also underscores how hands-on fieldwork builds real skills in habitat assessment and classification.

Overall, this is a strong, inventive piece that advances both our grasp of Mediterranean wetland vegetation and how we teach ecological methods. Involving students in genuine discovery is a smart, forward-looking model. I recommend acceptance after minor revisions: beef up the nomenclatural rationale for the new syntaxa, sharpen the educational framing in the intro, clarify a few figures, and do a quick English polish. With those tweaks, it’ll be a great fit for Land and should draw a wide readership.

Author Response

REPLY REVIEWER2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript offers a fresh and timely contribution that nicely bridges vegetation ecology with environmental education. The authors do a great job weaving the classic phytosociological approach—a cornerstone of vegetation science—into modern student-centered, project-based learning. This blend makes the study stand out, showing how real plant-community research can double as hands-on teaching in higher education. The work centers on the Costa Tropical region in southern Spain, where students got involved in actual fieldwork and data crunching, ultimately describing three new plant associations. That double payoff—pedagogical and scientific—lends the paper real originality. It fits squarely with today’s push for experiential and field-based ecological training, and could easily be adapted elsewhere in Europe or beyond. The manuscript fits well within the aims and scope of Land, especially regarding vegetation science, habitat conservation, and educational innovation

The methods are solid and well executed. Using phytosociological relevés, cluster analysis in PAST 4.03, and Shannon diversity indices to gauge community structure and conservation status is sound and clearly laid out. The treatment of the Hca/Hco ratio as a quantitative indicator of ecosystem health is particularly interesting and innovative. That said, a couple of clarifications would tighten things up. The justification for naming new syntaxa could tie more explicitly to the latest International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature (Theurillat et al., 2021). A deeper comparison of their relevés with existing associations from nearby Mediterranean areas would also help highlight what makes these new communities distinct. These are minor points, though—the overall design and analysis hold together coherently and fully back the conclusions.

What sets the manuscript apart is how it folds phytosociology into an educational context. The method has a long, respected history in European vegetation science, but its teaching potential is rarely tapped. Here, the authors show students picking up both scientific know-how and practical skills by applying the Braun-Blanquet approach in the field. It enriches ecology education and vegetation research alike. Describing three new associations (Lino maritimi–Juncetum acuti, Halimione portulacoidis–Phragmitetum australis, and Cynancho acuti–Typhetum dominguensis) adds solid scientific weight, especially since these wetlands matter for coastal conservation and management.

The paper flows logically from introduction to conclusions. The intro gives enough background, though the educational angle could be stated more upfront. Methods and results are well organized with the right level of detail, and the discussion ties findings back to both teaching and ecology effectively. The English is clear and professional, but a few sentences still carry a slight Spanish phrasing—nothing major, just light polishing needed. Figures and tables are helpful, though some (especially the vegetation tables and dendrograms) could be sharper in resolution and layout. A simple diagram outlining the teaching-research workflow would make it easier for non-specialists to follow.

This will appeal to anyone in vegetation science, biodiversity conservation, or higher-ed pedagogy. It offers a practical template for blending old-school ecological tools with inquiry-based, project-driven teaching. Other programs looking to beef up field ecology could run with this. By proving the Braun-Blanquet method can still deliver new science and learning outcomes, the paper links tradition to modern challenges in ecological training. It also underscores how hands-on fieldwork builds real skills in habitat assessment and classification.

Overall, this is a strong, inventive piece that advances both our grasp of Mediterranean wetland vegetation and how we teach ecological methods. Involving students in genuine discovery is a smart, forward-looking model. I recommend acceptance after minor revisions: beef up the nomenclatural rationale for the new syntaxa, sharpen the educational framing in the intro, clarify a few figures, and do a quick English polish. With those tweaks, it’ll be a great fit for Land and should draw a wide readership.

 

REPLY

Dear reviewer, we sincerely appreciate your comments. Your small suggestions have helped to refine and clarify the text. We have added a few short phrases to the text to reflect this.

1. Definition of the study area. 2. Bibliographic research. 3. Selection of sampling plots. 4. Determination of plot size. 5. Recording of ecological data for plots. 6. Recording of flora with abundance indices.

In the bibliographic research, students follow the norms established by the International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature published by Theurillat et al. [55], through which students learn how to identify new syntaxa for science. This research teaches the concepts of new association, nomina mutata, nomina inversa, and conservation of names. Special importance is given to Definition XIII of the aforementioned Code. In the comparative analysis of the new plant associations with their closest relatives, not only are there biogeographical differences, but also differences in floristics and ecology. In this respect, the Lino maritimi–Juncetum acuti association differs from the closest Holoschoeno–Juncetum acuti association due to the presence of the endemic species Linum maritimum, which is not found in the Gaditano–Onubense Littoral region. The Halimione portulacoidis–Phragmitetum australis association exhibits ecological and floristic differences due to its subhalophytic nature and the presence of Halimione portulacoides.

The figures and the use of the Code of Nomenclature are explained. The article is reviewed by a native English-speaking expert.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work provides a description of 3 new plant associations for the coastal areas of southern Andalusia. The theoretical frameworks on which the work is based are presented. The results document phytocenological images of the mentioned (new) associations with the determination of diversity index values.
Comments:
title - add information that this is the territory of Spain, or Andalusia
abstract should contain data (names) about new associations, at least their names. The abstract should be more specific - description of associations, their names.
Similarly, key words should contain words of new associations, or information that new associations were determined.
In Fig. 3, it would be appropriate to indicate the soil type, shallowness, outcrops of subsoil on the surface, soil profile, depth.
in the text Cazorlense and Magineuse district - it is appropriate to indicate in Fig. 4 (put in Fig. 4 as 4b)
- Where is the Tropical coast in Spain - which coast is meant by this.
Fig. 5 lacks specification of where this region is located within Spain, it is appropriate to supplement it with a small map of Spain with the cutout marked.
Methodology - supplement when the images were taken - years, months, how many were taken in total, how is the dynamics of the floristic composition captured during the year?
Fig.8 should be larger, supplemented in the text with more description, what is clear from the image, so that the reader can imagine this community.
Fig.5 - Characteristic species should not be missing in the association (??), then it does not make sense to list them as characteristic when they have a + representation or are missing. The authors should include their definition in the methodology, what they consider to be a characteristic species.
Tab. 6 species Iris, Apium as characteristic species are absent or rare. The dispersion for one species is from 0 to 5 - does this not make sense as a characteristic species? These species should have high stability in individual images.
The authors should add a description of the differences from other related associations to the results, describe CLEAR determining characters, so that the description of the associations is clear and justified.
In the discussion, further develop the idea of ​​these phytocoenological research, as the authors try to do in the conclusion.
In the discussion, the authors should also point out the weaknesses of these researches....
In the conclusion, then indicate the direction of further research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no comments

Author Response

REPLY REVIEWER3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work provides a description of 3 new plant associations for the coastal areas of southern Andalusia. The theoretical frameworks on which the work is based are presented. The results document phytocenological images of the mentioned (new) associations with the determination of diversity index values.
Comments:

Title - add information that this is the territory of Spain, or Andalusia

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your observation. We have included "Granada Province, Andalusia" in the title to specify the territory in Andalusia where the study is located.

Abstract should contain data (names) about new associations, at least their names. The abstract should be more specific - description of associations, their names.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your feedback. The summary has been restructured based on the reviewers' suggestions, including information and names of the new associations.

Similarly, key words should contain words of new associations, or information that new associations were determined.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your observation. The keywords have been modified at your request. The old ones have been replaced with the following: “New wetland associations; rush and reedbed associations; diversity and conservation; phytosociology and teaching.”

In Fig. 3, it would be appropriate to indicate the soil type, shallowness, outcrops of subsoil on the surface, soil profile, depth.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your observation. Information on soil type is included in Figure 3 (see Figure 3). Vegetation geoseries composed of four climatophilous series (1, 3, 4, 5; siliceous soils of the Cambisol type) and two edapho-xerophilous series (2, 6; rocky siliceous soils of the Lithosol type).

In the text Cazorlense and Magineuse district - it is appropriate to indicate in Fig. 4 (put in Fig. 4 as 4b)

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your observation. It doesn't seem necessary since both biogeographical districts are very close, and the community is located in both districts, although the photograph is from the Cazorla district.

- Where is the Tropical coast in Spain - which coast is meant by this.
Fig. 5 lacks specification of where this region is located within Spain, it is appropriate to supplement it with a small map of Spain with the cutout marked.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your observation. To facilitate the visualization of the location in Figure 5, we have included “(AG = Alpujarreño–Gadorense Sector; Granada Province, Andalusia).“

Methodology - supplement when the images were taken - years, months, how many were taken in total, how is the dynamics of the floristic composition captured during the year?

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your observation. The images from April to June, dates during which phytosociological inventories were conducted, confirmed that there was no change in floristic composition, except in cases of damage caused by human activity.

Fig.8 should be larger, supplemented in the text with more description, what is clear from the image, so that the reader can imagine this community.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your observation. Figure 8 has been enlarged and new informational text has been added: “These reedbeds form waterlogged stands that alternate with Phragmites australis communities towards drier areas, with the endemic species Linum maritimum being common. These communities have a dense structure and an average height between 1-1.8 m.”

Fig.5 - Characteristic species should not be missing in the association (??), then it does not make sense to list them as characteristic when they have a + representation or are missing. The authors should include their definition in the methodology, what they consider to be a characteristic species.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your observation. The concept of a characteristic species is clarified in the methodology section. A decrease in the frequency or even disappearance of a characteristic species is due to its poorly conserved association, but this does not imply that the species ceases to be characteristic; therefore, it must be maintained.

Tab. 6 species Iris, Apium as characteristic species are absent or rare. The dispersion for one species is from 0 to 5 - does this not make sense as a characteristic species? These species should have high stability in individual images.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your observation. The concept of a characteristic species is clarified in the methodology section. The decrease in frequency or even disappearance of a characteristic species is due to its poorly preserved association, but this does not imply that the species ceases to be characteristic. This explains the low frequencies of Iris and Apium; therefore, these species should be retained in the table. The text establishes a comparative analysis between the new associations and the closest ones, which is reflected in the clusters created.

The authors should add a description of the differences from other related associations to the results, describe CLEAR determining characters, so that the description of the associations is clear and justified.
In the discussion, further develop the idea of ​​these phytocoenological research, as the authors try to do in the conclusion.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your observation. New information regarding the importance of this research has been included. “The newly described associations are included in the Alpujarra-Gador biogeographical sector. Their importance lies in the fact that they are wetland communities of interest to birdlife, but they are subject to high tourist pressure that is destroying these communities. This could be corrected through mosaic development, which implies combining development and conservation. This can be achieved by respecting areas of botanical and ecological interest.”

In the discussion, the authors should also point out the weaknesses of these researches....

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your observation. The following paragraph on strengths and weaknesses is included in the text: “As is logical in all research, there are strengths and weaknesses. The greatest strength lies in the high level of knowledge regarding teaching methodologies and the phytosociological method of botanical research, and the use of the natural environment as research laboratories; however, there are also weaknesses, among which we highlight the excessive theoretical focus of the curriculum compared to practical application, making it necessary to convert the theoretical content into practical applications.”

In the conclusion, then indicate the direction of further research.

REPLY

Dear reviewer, thank you for your observation. Text included to indicate future research. “Future research should focus on strengthening and consolidating practical teaching over theoretical instruction, increasing student presence in the field as a natural laboratory. This will allow for greater societal understanding of nature and, therefore, greater resilience to natural disasters.”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the manuscript would be significantly supplemented and amended by the authors.
can be recommended for publication