Removal of an Invasive Alien Mediterranean Herbaceous (Asphodelus fistulosus) in a Mexican Botanical Garden

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe this is an important contribution to understanding invasive species management, but I see one of its main weaknesses as the underestimation of the costs associated with plant removal. It wasn't clear why only the costs related to the payment of the people responsible for removing the plants were considered. In my view, some effort should have been made to calculate the costs of the others, even if only superficially, bringing the figures a little closer to reality. Furthermore, I believe it would be interesting to project the costs, considering, for example, the removal of plants throughout the Botanical Garden's natural area, based on the findings for the studied area.

I also believe the manuscript would be more complete with the inclusion of images of both the environment with the various plants and their details.

In order to try to contribute to the improvement of the manuscript and make the information clearer for the reader, several comments were made directly in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: Okay, but not necessarily invasive.

Response 1: Line 39, the sentence was modified to specify that not all species can be invasive, following the reviewer’s comment.

 

Comments 2: How?

Response 2: Lines 50–51, the sentence was rewritten according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

 

Comments 3: Rev

Response 3: Line 64: The extra space after the word “áreas” was removed.

Line 110: A hyphen (-) was added to the term “re-invasión.”

 

Comments 4: Author and year? I believe it is important the proper citation of the name of the species

Response 4: Line 87: The authority for Myocastor coypus was added.

Line 88: The authority for Dreissena polymorpha was added.

Line 94: The authority for Eichhornia crassipes was added.

Line 256: The authority for Leonotis nepetifolia was added.

 

Comments 5: But not in Mexico?

Response 5: In line 95, the reviewer mentioned that Mexico is not included; however, in lines 104–106 the presence of the species in Mexico is described. The authors addressed this paragraph globally and later mentioned its occurrence in Mexico.

 

Comments 6: I believe it is important to standardize the way species are cited with their respective botanical family.

Response 6: Lines 120–125, species are now cited starting from the botanical family

 

Comments 7: Were these materials stored among the natural vegetation of the Botanical Garden?

Response 7: Lines 131-135, the site and the control process of materials prior to their use were mentioned.

 

Comments 8: Average number? Do all fruits always have the same number?

Response 8: Line 152, it was specified that the number of fruits is constant.

 

Comments 9: Are they perennials? If so, how long, on average, can such a plant live? Does the reproductive period refer to a single breeding season or the entire reproductive life of the plant? 16,000 seeds equal more than 2,600 fruits...

Response 9: Lines 98, an additional sentence was included to address the reviewer’s question from lines 185-186.

 

Comments 10: Removal of all plants from the plot?

Response 10: Line 206, the sentence was rephrased for clarity.

 

Comments 11: The name of a species should always be highlighted from the rest of the text

Response 11: Line 215, the authority was added to the scientific name.

 

Comments 12: Numbers in full.

Response 12: Lines 218 and 222: Numbers were changed to words.

 

Comments 13: Why? I believe that at least this cost should be included, even if superficially.

Response 13 Lines 223–225: Total costs were calculated and incorporated, including inputs.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Attached 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

n/a

Author Response

Comments 1: Please be clear if this is just an invasive species and not alien
as well

Response 1: Tittle: The term alien was added to clarify that Asphodelus fistulosus is an invasive alien species.

 

Comments 2: Line 19 – be consistent in the use of “native” vs “natural” vs
indigenous

Response 2: Abstract: The word “natural” was replaced with “native.”

 

Comments 3: Line 20 – suggest you indicate if Asphodelus fistulosus is an invasive alien species here.
i.e. …..the removal of “invasive alien” Asphodelus fistulosus was 20 carried out and during a subsequent 108-month period….

Response 3: Abstract: The term invasive alien was added.

 

Comments 4: Lines 20 – 22 – rewrite, two issues there and need to be in
two separate sentences

Response 4: Abstract: The sentence was restructured.

 

Comments 5: Line 24 – 25 – the sentence is confusing, maybe write the activities in chronological order depending on which activity came first or last between monitoring, removal, treatment and control

Response 5: Abstract: The sentence was restructured.

 

Comments 6: Line 34 – 37 – long sentence with different meanings –suggest you remove this first part – i.e. “Within the various pathways to the movement and transport of plant IAS”

Response 6: Abstract: The sentence was restructured.

 

Comments 7: Line 58 – what is BGCI?

Response 7: Introduction: The initials BGCI were written in full.

 

Comments 8: Lines 56, 58, 62, 65, 253, – invasive (alien) species?, invasive(alien) plants?

Response 8: Introduction: Third paragraph, the word alien was added in lines 56, 60, and 63.

 

Comments 9: Line 66 – include reference - ……in the early stages of the introduction-naturalization-invasion continuum (reference)

Response 9: Introduction: The references were added

 

Comments 10: A graphical depiction of the study site would make it easy for the ready to comprehend. A map indicating the 12x12m site of IAS patch, in the CRBG, in Mexico, globally.

Response 10: Material and Methods, results: A map was included to help readers locate the CRBG, assigning its figure number and renumbering the other figures in the manuscript accordingly.

 

Comments 11: It is not clear how invaded the CRBG is by Asphodelus fistulosus. Have previous studies quantified this in any way?

Material and Methods, results:  In lines 130–135, we added a sentence explaining some considerations regarding the presence of Asphodelus fistulosus in the CRBG.

Response 11: The intervention and control of Asphodelus fistulosus represent the first quantified cost for the IAS present in the CRBG.

 

Comments 12: Line 166 – 168, 208-210 – indicate the potential contribution/impact these other auxiliary costs could make and how that impact does not affect the overall objective and credibility of this study

Response 12: Material and Methods, results: Lines 234–236: Costs were calculated and incorporated, including inputs.

 

Comments 13: Line 220, 227 – alien vs non-native vs exotic species/plants – be consistent in the use of terms

Response 13: Discussion: Line 247; change the word non-native for alien

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work provides valuable information on the management of an invasive alien species in a botanical garden.

The study could be improved in several aspects, such as a thorough assessment of costs and the evaluation of the ecological recovery of the plots where the IAS has been removed.

To improve cost assessment, auxiliary costs should be included — for example, personal protective equipment, tools used, transportation and food expenses, incineration costs, or alternative methods for disposing of the removed plants, among others.

Regarding the evaluation of ecological recovery, it would be interesting to monitor the plot where the IAS was removed and quantify whether the richness and abundance of native species have increased.

The methodology could be improved by including the staff training protocols used for the manual removal of the IAS, and by proposing the creation of a manual to ensure the complete removal of the species.

Seed germination experiments with seeds of various ages were conducted, but the soil seed bank was not studied. I suggest proposing this test in future work and correlating the results with those already obtained, as it would provide a better understanding of the species’ persistence in the field.

Author Response

Comments 1: The study could be improved in several aspects, such as a thorough assessment of costs and the evaluation of the ecological recovery of the plots where the IAS has been removed.

Response 1: We include the input cost associated with the removal; this plot is the only population present at the CBGR. The interest in controlling this IAS at early stages was due to its accessibility and population size.

 

Comments 2: To improve cost assessment, auxiliary costs should be included — for example, personal protective equipment, tools used, transportation and food expenses, incineration costs, or alternative methods for disposing of the removed plants, among others

Response 2: Material and Methods, results: Lines 234-236: The costs of the inputs during the monitoring and eradication period of the invasive species were added.

 

Comments 3: Regarding the evaluation of ecological recovery, it would be interesting to monitor the plot where the IAS was removed and quantify whether the richness and abundance of native species have increase

Response 3: Material and Methods, results:  In lines 130–131, we specify that this area contains IAS, and that some native species also occur throughout the year. We did not evaluate whether the control of Asphodelus increases the richness or abundance of native species.

 

Comments 4: The methodology could be improved by including the staff training protocols used for the manual removal of the IAS, and by proposing the creation of a manual to ensure the complete removal of the species

Response 4: Material and Methods, results:  In lines 161–164, we briefly describe how we focused our efforts on detecting new seedlings.

 

Comments 5: Seed germination experiments with seeds of various ages were conducted, but the soil seed bank was not studied. I suggest proposing this test in future work and correlating the results with those already obtained, as it would provide a better understanding of the species’ persistence in the field

Response 5: In the conclusions, it was suggested that future studies should monitor the recovery of native plant species in areas where IAS are controlled or eradicated within the CRBG.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the comments