Abundance, Distribution and Association of Paphiopedilum fairrieanum (Lindl.) Stein with Site Factors in Brongshing, Samdrup Jongkhar District

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comment 1. In the introduction section, lack of information on the population status, biological characteristics, and habitat environment of Paphiopedilum fairrieanum (Lindl.) Stein. 

Comment 2. “Though there are few literatures regarding the habitat assessment of the Paphiopedilum fairrieanum, there is no scientific record stating how the geophysical and climatic factors affect the abundance and the distribution of the species.” The author's expression is contradictory.

Comment 3. Why a circular plot with a radius of 5.64 m was selected as a sample plot? In most cases, a square (e.g., 5 × 5 m) plot was laid out in each sampling plot to assess herbaceous species.

Comment 4. Data collection, methodology and data analysis section, the author did not write the collection time, frequency of investigation, etc.

Comment 5. Which version of SPSS was used?

Comment 6. Which software is used to draw the Figure？

Comment 7. In the results section, only the effects of single factors on species distribution were analyzed, and it is recommended to add multivariate correlations, such as CCA to analyze the effects of all environmental factors on the distribution of Paphiopedilum fairrieanum (Lindl.) Stein.

Comment 8. “The distribution of Paphiopedilum fairrieanum in the study area” indicates that it is more widely distributed in the south. And in the results "from the three slopes, more individuals of Paphiopedilum fairrieanum were found facing southeast, followed by south and then southwest." Why was there no sample area in the southwest of the study area for the survey?

Comment 9. The section of discussion should be elaborated with more evidence as now it stays at several parts much descriptive with the results and the conceptions.

Comment 10. Other problems about the non-standard expression need a deep correction. Here I haven't listed all the mistakes that leave to the author.

Author Response

Response to reviewer’s comments

Comment 1. In the introduction section, lack of information on the population status, biological characteristics, and habitat environment of Paphiopedilum fairrieanum (Lindl.) Stein. 

Response 1. Sir I have added the recommended information about the orchid species, the population status, biological characteristics, and its habitat environment.

Comment 2. “Though there are few literatures regarding the habitat assessment of the Paphiopedilum fairrieanum, there is no scientific record stating how the geophysical and climatic factors affect the abundance and the distribution of the species.” The author's expression is contradictory.

Response 2. Yes, there is no studies done till date about the effect of geophysical and climatic on the distribution and abundance of this orchid species. Therefore, it is very difficult to compare with other papers and make a conclusion. So I have compared with other relevant literature and made it bit clear sir.

Comment 3. Why a circular plot with a radius of 5.64 m was selected as a sample plot? In most cases, a square (e.g., 5 × 5 m) plot was laid out in each sampling plot to assess herbaceous species.

Response 3. Circular plot was selected as sample plot for my research because the ratio of perimeter to area is minimum in circular plots, which minimizes the error while collecting the data and also laying of the plot is easy. While laying out plots in the field it avoids the rhombus laying of plots. In the case of other shaped plots such as squares and rectangles, there is a chance of laying out the plots in rhombus shape, especially in hilly areas which result in biased data.

The plot with the radius of 5.64 m was applied because it results in an area 100-meter square. The data for this orchid species was collected from 100-meter square because I was only interested in this particular orchid species which was critically endangered. Therefore, to increase the chances of its occurrence of this orchid species in the plot, the radius of 5.64 meter was applied.

Comment 4. Data collection, methodology and data analysis section, the author did not write the collection time, frequency of investigation, etc.

Response 4: The data were collected in the year 2019 October till February 2020.

Comment 5. Which version of SPSS was used?

 Response 5. SPSS version 23.0 was used

Comment 6. Which software is used to draw the Figure？

 Response 6. Microsoft Excel worksheet (.xlsx)

Comment 7. In the results section, only the effects of single factors on species distribution were analyzed, and it is recommended to add multivariate correlations, such as CCA to analyze the effects of all environmental factors on the distribution of Paphiopedilum fairrieanum (Lindl.) Stein.

Response 7. Sir I have run a correlation test in my study just to see how each of those factors affects its distribution and abundance in the study area. I thought it was enough because it shows all the associations between all the variables. If it is not to the point, I want to change the test.

Comment 8. “The distribution of Paphiopedilum fairrieanum in the study area” indicates that it is more widely distributed in the south. And in the results "from the three slopes, more individuals of Paphiopedilum fairrieanum were found facing southeast, followed by south and then southwest." Why was there no sample area in the southwest of the study area for the survey?

Response 8. Yes, there were a greater number of the orchid species in the southeast followed by the south and then the southwest. From 34 plots, there were 8 plots facing southwest.

Comment 9. The section of discussion should be elaborated with more evidence as now it stays at several parts much descriptive with the results and the conceptions.

Response 9. I have added in the discussion section as per the comment of the sir. However, due to lack of relevant literature on this orchid species, it is very difficult to make it very clear.

Comment 10. Other problems about the non-standard expression need a deep correction. Here I haven't listed all the mistakes that leave to the author.

Response 10. I have edited for grammar from the beginning to the end of the paper. I have also changed some parts and added to some parts.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Respected Sir/madam

The followings are a few suggestions for the improvement of the manuscript.

1. Introduction and discussion are too short, it contains 6-7 citations each, it should be improved by incorporating more numbers of recent articles.

2. Describe in detail how GIS helps to identify a particular plant in different age groups.

3. Statistical analysis is poor, only software-generated data were provided in the Tables, it should be complied with and also mention which statistical software they had used for the analysis.

4. In Appendix I, the authors should clearly mention how many Paphiopedilum fairrieanum were there in the total number of orchids in different plots.

anticipate your needful action in this regard.

best wishes

Alok

Author Response

1. Introduction and discussion are too short, it contains 6-7 citations each, it should be improved by incorporating more numbers of recent articles.

Response 1. I have added in the introduction parts the references and more information about the orchid species.

2. Describe in detail how GIS helps to identify a particular plant in different age groups.

Response 2. Sir, I have used GIS just to show the spatial distribution of this orchid species in the study area after data collection. The differentiation of the age group of this orchid species was done in the field during data collection. GIS will be not in a position to show its age group differences. In the spatial distribution of this orchid species, I have shown only the total number of this orchid species that were found in each plot (it includes all matured, immature individuals of this orchid species.

3. Statistical analysis is poor, only software-generated data were provided in the Tables, it should be complied with and also mention which statistical software they had used for the analysis.

Response 3. SPSS version 23.0 was used. I have not reflected in the paper in earlier cases but now I have reflected in the article.

As I was studying how geophysical and climatic factors affects the distribution and abundance of the Paphiopedilum fairrieanum in the study area, therefore, I have run a correlation test to see its association.

4. In Appendix I, the authors should clearly mention how many Paphiopedilum fairrieanum were there in the total number of orchids in different plots.

Response 4. In the appendix, I have mentioned the total number of the orchid in each plot. Out of 34 plots, the orchid was found in only 10 plots and their total was reflected. Plot 1 (n=271), plot 2 (n =210), plot 8 (n =115), plot 12 (n=112), plot 13 (n=95), plot 15 (n=94), plot 16 (n=54), plot 17 (n=9), plot 19 (n=35), plot 20 (n=9). In the rest of the plot, this orchid species was not encountered. Now I have added the overall total to the table in the appendix.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This MS tries to fill up this gap by determining the distribution, abundance, and relationship of Paphiopedilum fairrieanum. With systematic sampling in the site plots, the paper determines the species distribution characteristics, which would further contribute to the local conservation of these endangered plants.

The revised version has been improved a lot.

My final comment is that this MS would be accepted.