Floristic Diversity and Stand Structure of Tree Species in Historical Rubber Plantations (Hevea brasiliensis Wild ex A. Juss) in Sankuru, DR Congo: Implications for Biodiversity Conservation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Introdução e Revisão da Literatura

   • Identificação de Lacunas: Defina explicitamente a lacuna de pesquisa. Cite estudos recentes sobre biodiversidade de plantações tropicais e correlações de NDVI (por exemplo, Gaveau et al. 2020; Silva et al. 2019) para posicionar seu trabalho.

   • Esclarecimento sobre ORCID: Remova o erro de digitação “ORCIDA”; liste seu ORCID como “ORCID: 0000-0003-4979-1395”.

2. Métodos

   • Delineamento Amostral (4.1.1): Descreva como os gráficos foram localizados aleatoriamente ou sistematicamente para evitar viés. Especifique as larguras de buffer usadas para mitigar os efeitos de borda e faça referência aos protocolos de Kasekete et al. [40] [0].

   • Testes estatísticos: para cada ANOVA ou teste t, inclua as suposições do teste (normalidade, homocedasticidade), graus de liberdade e se a correção de Welch foi aplicada [1].

   • Software e controle de versão: versões de software estaduais (por exemplo, R 4.2.1, PAST 4.0.3) e versões de pacotes para reprodutibilidade [0].

3. Resultados

   • Consistência de Figura/Tabela: Certifique-se de que as figuras sejam numeradas sequencialmente; unifique as unidades (árvores ha⁻¹, m² ha⁻¹) e a formatação de porcentagem (espaço antes de “%”) em todo o texto [1].

   • Disponibilidade de dados: inclua uma Declaração de disponibilidade de dados especificando onde os troncos brutos, listas de espécies e coordenadas de parcelas podem ser acessados.

4. Discussão

   • Engajamento crítico: compare seus padrões de diversidade com sistemas agroflorestais semelhantes (por exemplo, borracha da selva de Sumatra [8]; florestas de borracha de Hainan [7]) e discuta por que Sankuru difere.

   • Limitações: Reconhecer a omissão do sub-bosque (DAP < 10 cm) como uma limitação do estudo e sugerir como pesquisas futuras podem preencher essa lacuna [46–48].

5. Conclusões

   • Foco e Concisão: Simplifique para três a quatro tópicos de recomendações práticas. Evite listar todas as espécies medidas; mova as listas completas para Material Suplementar [0].

   • Trabalho futuro: propor próximos passos específicos (por exemplo, modelagem de estoque de carbono em povoamentos de espécies mistas; pesquisas socioeconômicas).

6. Referências

   • Atualizar citações: Integrar aplicações recentes de sensoriamento remoto em ecologia tropical (por exemplo, modelagem de carbono baseada em NDVI na ÁFRICA pós-2020) e reduzir a dependência de fontes mais antigas (> 10 anos).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for taking the time to evaluate our manuscript and express our gratitude for your availability, scientific rigor, and the relevance of your comments.

In response to your comments, we have revised several sections of the manuscript to improve its clarity, flow, and coherence. The changes made are visible in the revised version of the manuscript.  In addition, we have adjusted the overall format of the article, including the layout, presentation of sections, and formatting of tables, figures, and bibliographic references, in order to fully meet the editorial requirements of the journal Conservation (MDPI).

We have taken all of your suggestions into account, from the introduction to the conclusion, including those relating to bibliographical references.

We would like to thank you once again for your valuable contribution to improving our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study evaluated the floristic diversity and structure of historical rubber plantations in Sankuru. The findings may provide suggestions for the sustainable managements of the rubber plantations. However, after carefully reading the manuscript, I think the manuscript should be improved before publication. My detailed comments are as below.

1. Method: The author has used a large amount of text to describe the calculation of various indexes. In fact, most of them are common calculation methods and only require a simple description.
2. The experiment design of this study was simple, just compared the plant diversity in rubber plantation owned by state and peasant. Only several index including density, richness, Shannon and Simpson diversity et al. were calculated. In fact, all the results can be described in just a few paragraphs. However, the author has used a large amount of text to describe the results. Many paragraphs are unnecessary and do not contribute to the results at all, and can be deleted (like lines 418-424, 458-466, 488-497, 531-538, 569-576, 625-633, 658-665, 676-685, 711-720, 772-785,805-816).
3. Line 119, what did two types of plantations indicate? What’s the difference of the management between plantations owned by state and peasant? Why made the comparison between these two types of plantations? Please make a brief introduction in Introduction part.
4. Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 had the same figure captions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for carefully reading our manuscript and for your constructive comments, which have enabled us to improve its clarity, conciseness, and scientific rigor.

In accordance with your recommendations, we have considerably streamlined the methodology section by simplifying the description of the indices used, retaining only those elements that are essential for the understanding of the non-specialist reader.

We have also revised the results section to condense its content. The paragraphs mentioned (lines 418-424, 458-466, 488-497, 531-538, 569-576, 625-633, 658-665, 676-685, 711-720, 772-785, 805-816) have been either deleted or merged to avoid redundancy and improve readability.

In response to your comment regarding line 119, we have added a brief presentation of the two types of plantations in the introduction, specifying their distinct management methods and the reasons for comparing them in this study (lines 90-95).

Finally, the error in the captions for Figures 6 and 7 has been corrected to avoid any confusion.

We thank you again for your valuable contribution to improving our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Conservation-3652647

 

Floristic Diversity and Structure of Historical Rubber Plantations (Hevea brasiliensis) in Sankuru, DR Congo: Implications for Biodiversity Conservation

 

General comments

 

This manuscript thoroughly examines the floristic diversity and structure of native tree species within rubber plantations in Sankuru. It possesses significant potential for publication; however, the authors must address several issues. Firstly, the manuscript appears excessively lengthy, including the abstract. I believe that with better organization and emphasis on the most critical elements, the authors could produce a commendable work. Secondly, the objectives are not clearly defined. The second objective, in particular, lacks a clear methodology and results. Thirdly, the sampling design and statistical methods employed are ambiguous. The authors need to specify whether the sample plots are 0.25 ha or 1 ha. They reference certain statistical tools in the Methods section, yet present different ones in the Results section. Fourthly, there are portions of text in the Results that likely belong in the Methods section, or conversely, text in the Results that pertains to the Discussion. Lastly, the Conclusions section reiterates points already made in the Results. This manuscript requires substantial revision before it can be resubmitted to this Journal or a similar one.

 

Specific comments

 

Lines / Sections	Comments
Title	It is essential to indicate that this research pertains to tree or woodland species.
Abstract	The abstract contains an excessive amount of information regarding statistical outcomes. Such abstracts are not typically encountered.
82-84	Incomplete sentence
84-85	Redundancy in the same sentence
123-127	The goals are ambiguous. The second goal does not pertain to the research, recognizing that each objective should yield its own results and conclusions.
Figure 1	The map of the study area requires additional information. For instance, it should incorporate the locations of sample points and distinguish between state and peasant plantations. You possess three maps; however, it may be necessary to provide a description for each one.
154	Farmer plantations? In the Abstract you mention “peasant plantations”
155	What does mean “INERA”?
164-170	Your experimental design lacks clarity. Based on your description, you possess four plots, each measuring 0.25 hectares, which are grouped together. Additionally, you indicate that each 0.25-hectare plot is treated as a sample point (a replicate). It is my understanding that you ought to regard your 1-hectare plot as a single replicate.
Table 1	It is essential to standardize the terminology employed in this manuscript. Currently, you are utilizing the terms "Etatique" and "Paysanne" Plantations. The fifth column ought to represent the count of subplots. The final column should indicate the total number of plots.
209	Here you mention your sample plot as 1-ha
206	You did not mention in the title the “Structure”
220	Where are the results about degree of disturbance?
272-273	The use of (Dr) to denote relative diversity and relative density is quite perplexing.
283-289	Describe the level of error considered for this analysis
310	I have not observed the application of ANOVA; however, I have noted the utilization of the T-test and Mann-Whitney test in the Results section.
310	“Lodja and Lomela territories”: use state and peasant plantations
311	Elucidate the conditions that must be satisfied in order to utilize non-parametric statistics.
341	You should use the original bibliography, which is Magurran 2004
370	I have not observed the application of the Sorensen index in the Results.
394-403	While it is crucial to clarify the rationale behind the utilization of the Sorensen Index, the explanation is excessively lengthy. Aim to condense this in the Methods section. Apply the same approach to other types of indices.
Figure 2	In the Methods section, the T-test analysis was not referenced. Is the Y-axis representing tree density or tree density per hectare? Additionally, there is an equation presented below the Figure that has not been elucidated in the Methods.
413-414	Figure 2 shows other different numbers compared to these lines
All Tables	You should use periods instead of commas to separate decimals.
Table 2	Reduce the number of decimals
458-466	Move to Discussion
473-474	This is not part of Results. Move to Methods.
471-472	Write in italics the scientific names. Look at also line 1196.
Figure 3	This is repeated with Table 2
Figure 4	Maintain consistency in terminology usage. On the X-axis, the term "Relative abundance" is employed, whereas in the figure's explanation, the terms "Abundance or Relative density" are utilized.
Figure 5	Maintain consistency in terminology usage. On the X-axis, the term "Relative abundance" is employed, whereas in the figure's explanation, the terms "Abundance or Relative density" are utilized.
577	The concept of species rarefaction is not addressed in the Methods section. Figure 8 illustrates the relationship between the number of species and the number of plots, which does not represent species rarefaction.
Figure 8	Several words are redundant in the Figure.
Table 3	The compilation of species is excessively extensive. I recommend limiting the selection to the initial 10 or 15 species. It is advisable to maintain only three columns: Species, State (IVI), and Peasant (IVI)
Table 4	I recommend utilizing solely the initial 10 or 15 species. You should maintain only three columns: Family name, State (IVI), and Peasant (IVI). Additionally, translate certain words into English.
Figure 9	This Figure is redundant with Table 3
Figure 10	This Figure is redundant with Table 4
Table 5	Translate to English some words, like Equitabilté. Change commas to periods to separate decimals.
Figure 11	Figures vary in size.   The text is excessively small.   I have not encountered an explanation of the Mann-Whitney test in the Methods section.
658-666	Move to Discussion
676-685	Move to Discussion
Figure 12, 734	Adjust the outer boundary of the figure. The title for the Y-axis should indicate either the number of trees or the number of trees per hectare. This figure must be constructed using the mean and standard error for each diameter at breast height (DBH) class.
Figure 12, 753	There exist two figures that share the same number. The final figure features the title of the Y-axis in a language that is not English.
Figure 13	I have not seen X^2 Pearson in Methods
Table 7	You need to translate into English
Conclusions	In this section you are repeating part of your results.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your careful analysis of our manuscript and for your thorough and constructive comments, which have enabled us to identify several areas for improvement.

In line with your suggestion, we have streamlined and reorganized the manuscript, including the abstract, focusing on the key results and messages to make it more concise and readable. The study objectives have been recorded in the introduction to be clearer and more specific. The second objective has also been clarified, in particular by adding the associated results and implications. The sampling plan has been clarified: each study plot covers 1 hectare and comprises four subplots of 0.25 hectares, as now specified in the Methods section. Inconsistencies between the statistical tools mentioned and those actually used have been corrected to ensure greater consistency between the Methods and Results sections. In addition, certain paragraphs have been reorganized between the Results, Methods, and Discussion sections in order to improve the overall structure of the manuscript and comply with the expected standards for scientific presentation.

Specific answers:

Title It is essential to indicate that this research pertains to tree or woodland species.

Answers: Thank you for this pertinent comment. The title has been modified to clearly indicate that the study focuses on the floristic diversity and structure of tree species within rubber plantations. The new title is: “Floristic Diversity and Stand Structure of Tree Species in Historical Rubber Plantations of Sankuru (DR Congo): Implications for Forest Biodiversity Conservation.” (Lines 1-3)

Abstract The abstract contains an excessive amount of information regarding statistical outcomes. Such abstracts are not typically encountered.

Answers : Thank you for your comment. However, we have chosen to retain certain statistical elements in the summary in order to highlight the significant differences observed between the two types of plantations. These data clearly demonstrate the differences between state-owned and smallholder plantations in terms of floristic diversity indices. This approach aims to reinforce the scientific value of the summary while shedding light on the ecological implications of contrasting management methods.

82-84 Incomplete sentence

Answers : Thank you for pointing out this incomplete sentence. It has been reworded to be grammatically correct and clearly express the original idea.

84-85 Redundancy in the same sentence

Answers : The redundancy identified in this sentence has been removed. A more concise and direct rewording has been adopted to avoid repetition while retaining the meaning.

123-127 The goals are ambiguous. The second goal does not pertain to the research, recognizing that each objective should yield its own results and conclusions.

Answers: The objectives have been clarified. The second objective has been reworded to better align with the results and scope of the study. Each objective is now clearly linked to measurable results and specific conclusions in the body of the text (lines 128–135).

Figure 1 The map of the study area requires additional information. For instance, it should incorporate the locations of sample points and distinguish between state and peasant plantations. You possess three maps; however, it may be necessary to provide a description for each one.

Answers: We have improved Figure 1 by adding new annotations: sampling points are now clearly indicated, state plantations and smallholder plantations are distinguished using different symbols, and a complete legend has been included to facilitate reading and interpretation of the map (lines 170-171).

154 Farmer plantations? In the Abstract you mention “peasant plantations”

Answers: We have clarified the concept of “Peasant plantations” in the text, specifying that these are small plantations initiated and managed locally by farmers without institutional supervision.

155 What does mean “INERA”?

Answers: We have specified, from the first mention in the text as well as in the list of abbreviations at the end of the manuscript, that INERA refers to the National Institute for Agricultural Research, a leading public institution in the field of agricultural research in the Democratic Republic of Congo (lines 90-92).

164-170 Your experimental design lacks clarity. Based on your description, you possess four plots, each measuring 0.25 hectares, which are grouped together. Additionally, you indicate that each 0.25-hectare plot is treated as a sample point (a replicate). It is my understanding that you ought to regard your 1-hectare plot as a single replicate.

Answers: We have reworded the description to clarify that the experimental inventory system was subdivided into four subplots of 0.25 ha, thus constituting a total plot of one hectare. The replication unit used for statistical analyses is the 0.25-hectare subplot, not the plot. This methodological choice was made to diversify the sampling while ensuring statistical robustness. Thus, the inventory covered 40 subplots for state plantations (a total of 10 ha) and 40 subplots for smallholder plantations (also 10 ha), as shown in Table 1. This clarification is now clearly explained in the “Methodology” section.

Table 1 It is essential to standardize the terminology employed in this manuscript. Currently, you are utilizing the terms "State" and "Peasant" Plantations. The fifth column ought to represent the count of subplots. The final column should indicate the total number of plots.

Answers: We have harmonized the terms by systematically using “state plantations” and “peasant plantations” throughout the manuscript. In addition, the fifth column of the table has been renamed “Number of subplots (0.25 ha)” and the last column now indicates the Total number of plots (1 ha) (Table 1).

209 Here you mention your sample plot as 1-ha

Answers: This statement has been verified and corrected to ensure consistency with the methodological description, which specifies that each inventory plot covers one hectare, divided into four subplots of 0.25 ha.

206 You did not mention in the title the “Structure”

Answers: The title has been adjusted to include the concept of tree stand structure in order to better reflect the content of the manuscript.

220 Where are the results about degree of disturbance

Answers: The results related to species temperament and degree of disturbance are shown in Figure 14.

272-273 The use of (Dr) to denote relative diversity and relative density is quite perplexing.

Answers: The abbreviations have been clarified in the manuscript: “Dr” refers to relative abundance (or relative density), while “Dir” refers to relative diversity (lines 305-309).

283-289 Describe the level of error considered for this analysis

Answers: We have added a sentence to describe the error level taken into account for this analysis.

310 I have not observed the application of ANOVA; however, I have noted the utilization of the T-test and Mann-Whitney test in the Results section.

Answers: In the manuscript, we clarified all of the statistical analyses used. To assess significant differences between plantation types, several tests adapted to the nature of the data were used. Pearson's χ² test was used to analyze the associations between plantation types (state-owned vs. smallholder) and species ecological categories (pioneer, non-pioneer, shade-tolerant). Cramer’s V index was used to measure the strength of these associations, particularly for qualitative variables. Fisher's exact test was applied to compare the proportions of endemic species, particularly when the numbers observed were low. For quantitative variables that did not meet the normality assumption, such as floristic richness or tree density, the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare the distributions between the two types of management. Finally, Welch's t-test, a variant of the classic t-test, was used to compare the initial density, number of trees, number of species, number of genera, number of families and basal are averages between the two types of plantations without assuming equality of variances between the groups. All analyses were performed using R software (version 4.4.1), with a statistical significance threshold set at p < 0.05.

310 “Lodja and Lomela territories”: use state and peasant plantations

Answers: In the manuscript, we specified that the inventories of state plantations were carried out in the Lomela territory, while those of smallholder plantations were conducted in the Lodja territory. This geographical distribution is also clearly illustrated on the location map in Figure 1.

311 Elucidate the conditions that must be satisfied in order to utilize nonparametric statistics.

Answers: We have added a brief explanation of the conditions that justify the use of nonparametric tests, particularly when the data do not meet the conditions of normality or homogeneity of variance.

341 You should use the original bibliography, which is Magurran 2004

Answers: The reference to Magurran has been updated to correctly cite the original work: Magurran, A.E. (2004). Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing (line 427).

370 I have not observed the application of the Sorensen index in the Results.

Answers: The results related to the Sørensen index, used to assess the floristic similarity between the two types of plantations, are presented in the Results section, between (lines 716-726).

394-403 While it is crucial to clarify the rationale behind the utilization of the Sorensen Index, the explanation is excessively lengthy. Aim to condense this in the Methods section. Apply the same approach to other types of indices.

Answers: The justification for the Sørensen index is given in the section in lines 434-442.

Figure 2 In the Methods section, the T-test analysis was not referenced. Is the Y-axis representing tree density or tree density per hectare? Additionally, there is an equation presented below the Figure that has not been elucidated in the Methods.

Answers: The mention of the t-test used to compare densities has been added to the Methods section. This is Welch's t-test (a variant of the t-test) used when it is not assumed that the two groups have the same variance. The Y-axis represents the density of trees per hectare. In this graph, the equations at the top and bottom summarize the results of Welch's t-test and the associated measures. Here is what they mean:

Top:

- t(≈75.16) = 7.26: t-statistic with approximately 75.16 degrees of freedom.

- p = 2.97e-10: very low p-value, indicating a highly significant difference between the two groups.

- gHedges = 1.61: Hedges' effect size (a measure of the magnitude of the difference).

- CI95 [1.10, 2.11]: 95% confidence interval for the effect size.

- nobs = 80: total number of observations (40 per group).

Bottom:

- log₂(BF10) = 17.23: base 2 logarithm of the Bayes Factor (very high, confirming strong evidence in favor of a difference).

- Δmeans = 74.13: mean difference between the two groups.

- CI95 [53.14, 95.19]: confidence interval for the difference in means.

- R²Cohen = 0.71: explained variance (very strong), according to Cohen.

413-414 Figure 2 shows other different numbers compared to these lines

Answers: We have checked and harmonized the figures in Figure 2 with the values reported in the text. The figure shows the average densities per 0.25 ha subplot, which we have extrapolated to the hectare.

All Tables You should use periods instead of commas to separate decimals.

Answers: We have replaced commas with periods to separate decimals, in accordance with Conservation/MDPI journal guidelines.

Table 2 Reduce the number of decimals

Answers: The number of decimal places has been reduced to 2 in order to make it easier to read and remain scientifically relevant.

458-466 More to Discussion

Answers: This passage has been moved to the Discussion section, as suggested.

473-474 This is not of Results. Move to Methods.

Answers: This content has been moved to the Methods section, as it concerns the description of the analytical approach.

471-472 Write in italics the scientific names. Look at also line 1196.

Answers: All scientific names have been reviewed and italicized in accordance with scientific conventions.

Figure 3 This is repeated with Table 2

Answers: Figure 3 specifically illustrates the results relating to basal area, a key parameter in this study, while Table 2 presents the results concerning the floristic composition of historic rubber plantations in Sankuru in a more general way. We therefore wish to retain these two elements in order to ensure greater clarity and understanding of the manuscript.

Figure 4 Maintain consistency in terminology usage. On the X-axis, the term "Relative abundance" is employed, whereas in the figure's explanation, the terms "Abundance or Relative density" are utilized.

Answers: The terminology has been standardized: the term “relative abundance” is now used consistently both on the X-axis and in the explanatory legend of the figure.

Figure 5 Maintain consistency in terminology usage. On the X-axis, the term "Relative abundance" is employed, whereas in the figure's explanation, the terms "Abundance or Relative density" are utilized.

Answers: We have harmonized the terminology by using only “relative abundance” on the X-axis and in the explanation of the figure to ensure consistency.

577 The concept of species rarefaction is not addressed in the Methods section. Figure 8 illustrates the relationship between the number of species and the number of plots, which does not represent species rarefaction.

Answers: The concept of species rarefaction was clearly addressed in the Methods section in lines 315-324. Figure 8 shows the species accumulation curves for two types of plantations. The x-axis represents the number of subplots sampled, and the y-axis indicates the cumulative number of species observed.

Figure 8 Several words are redundant in the Figure.

Answers: We have increased the visibility of Figure 8.

Table 3 The compilation of species is excessively extensive. I recommend limiting the selection to the initial 10 or 15 species. It is advisable to maintain only three columns: Species, State (IVI), and Peasant (IVI)

Table 4 I recommend utilizing solely the initial 10 or 15 species. You should maintain only three columns: Family name, State (IVI), and Peasant (IVI). Additionally, translate certain words into English.

Figure 9 This Figure is redundant with Table 3

Figure 10 This Figure is redundant with Table 4

Answers: Thank you very much for your suggestion to limit the number of species in the tables to 10 or 15. However, given the importance of these results for our study, we have chosen to retain all of the species and families inventoried in order to present the Importance Value Indices (IVI) in a comprehensive manner. This approach allows for a more exhaustive analysis of the floristic composition of these historic plantations. Furthermore, Figures 9 and 10 illustrate only the IVIs of the ten most dominant species and families, while Tables 3 and 4 provide the complete list. This is therefore not a duplication, but rather a complementarity between the summary data (figures) and the detailed data (tables).

Table 5 Translate to English some words, like Equitabilté. Change commas to periods to separate decimals.

Answers: Terms such as “Equitability” have been corrected and translated into English. Decimal commas have been replaced with decimal points in accordance with Conservation/MDPI journal guidelines.

Figure 11 Figures vary in size.

The text is excessively small.

I have not encountered an explanation of the Mann-Whitney test in the Methods section.

Answers: The sizes of the subfigures have been standardized and the text size increased to improve readability. We have also added a detailed description of the Mann-Whitney test in the Methods section, specifying the conditions for its application and its role in statistical analysis.

658-666 Move to Discussion

Answers: Thank you for your insightful comment. This paragraph has been moved to the Discussion section, where it fits better with the analysis and interpretation of the results.

Figure 12, 734 Adjust the outer boundary of the figure. The title for the Y-axis should indicate either the number of trees or the number of trees per hectare. This figure must be constructed using the mean and standard error for each diameter at breast height (DBH) class.

Answers: This figure shows the diameter structure between the two types of plantations. The X-axis shows the diameter classes (in 10 cm increments, from 10–20 to 110–120 cm) and the Y-axis shows the total number of trees recorded in each diameter class.

Figure 12, 753 There exist two figures that share the same number. The final figure features the title of the Y-axis in a language that is not English.

Answers: We have renamed the second figure to “Figure 13” to avoid duplication of the number. In addition, the Y-axis has been translated into English to ensure linguistic consistency throughout the manuscript.

Figure 13 I have not seen X^2 Pearson in Methods

Answers: We have added a complete explanation of Pearson's chi-square test in the Methods section to better justify its use in this figure.

Table 7 You need to translate into English

Answers: The table has been translated entirely into English to comply with the language of the journal and ensure consistency with the rest of the manuscript.

Conclusions In this section you are repeating part of your results.

Answers: We have revised the Conclusion section to avoid direct repetition of the results. It has been reworded to place greater emphasis on the ecological implications and practical recommendations arising from the study.

We thank you again for your valuable contribution to improving our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded clearly, respectfully, and technically to all reviewer comments, demonstrating a strong commitment to improving both the scientific and editorial quality of the manuscript. The modifications made to the manuscript structure, methodology, and results presentation have significantly enhanced the clarity and consistency of the research.

Strengths of the revised version include:

• Improved description of the sampling design and statistical replicates;

• Clear justifications for methodological choices and adjustments;

• Detailed and consistent clarification of all statistical tests used;

• Reorganization of sections to improve logical flow between Methods, Results, and Discussion;

• Corrections to figures, tables, and terminology for scientific accuracy and consistency;

• Adjustment of the title and research objectives to better reflect the actual scope and findings of the study.

I recommend acceptance after minor editorial revisions, only if the editorial office considers small formatting or language refinements necessary, as the manuscript is already in excellent scientific condition.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your constructive comments and thorough evaluation.

Your feedback has been extremely useful in enhancing the scientific quality and clarity of our manuscript. Thanks to your observations, we have been able to clarify methodological choices, harmonize the use of statistical tests, ensure greater consistency between the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections, and improve the graphic presentation and terminology used.

In accordance with your final recommendation, we have also reviewed the entire formatting of the manuscript to bring it fully into line with the editorial standards of the journal Conservation (MDPI).

We would like to reiterate our thanks for your valuable and stimulating contribution.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is preferable not to include statistical analysis results such as p-values and degrees of freedom in the abstract. I have no other comments besides this.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We warmly thank you for your appreciation of our work and our efforts to improve.

Regarding the inclusion of the statistical test in the abstract, we felt it was important to keep it in order to highlight, from the outset, the significant difference observed between the two types of plantations. This allows the reader to immediately grasp the main scientific significance of our study. We hope that this explanation meets your expectations.

Thank you again for your valuable support.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript has seen significant improvements. Nevertheless, the authors must address several straightforward issues.

Tables: The decimal notation in the tables still employs commas. It is essential to review all tables for standardization.
Figures: The figures exhibit varying styles. It is important to maintain consistency in colors, fonts, and overall structure across all figures. Figures 9, 10, and 12 differ stylistically from the remaining figures. The lettering in the figures is inconsistent, with some in Uppercase and others in Lowercase. Additionally, the border in Figure 12 should be removed. Figure 13 is missing the lines for the X and Y coordinates. The legend for Figure 14 indicates proportions, yet the displayed numbers are percentages.
References 13, 14, and 63 are formatted differently than the others. Reference 16 requires a review as it is missing certain information.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We thank you for your detailed comments, which have enabled us to improve the formal presentation of the manuscript in terms of tables, figures, and references.

Tables: The decimal notation in the tables still employs commas. It is essential to review all tables for standardization.

 

 

Answer: Decimal notation has been standardized by replacing all commas with periods in accordance with Conservation/MDPI journal standards. All tables have been proofread and corrected to ensure consistency of style.

Figures: The figures exhibit varying styles. It is important to maintain consistency in colors, fonts, and overall structure across all figures. Figures 9, 10, and 12 differ stylistically from the remaining figures. The lettering in the figures is inconsistent, with some in Uppercase and others in Lowercase. Additionally, the border in Figure 12 should be removed.

Answer:  All figures have been revised to harmonize colors, fonts, lettering (upper/lower case), and overall structure. Figures 9, 10, and 12 have been adjusted to match the style of the other figures. The border in Figure 12 has been removed.

Figure 13 is missing the lines for the X and Y coordinates.

Answer: Thank you for your comment. However, in this figure, the X-axis represents the different strata of the vertical structure of the historic rubber plantations in Sankuru, while the Y-axis indicates the percentage of individuals belonging to each stratum. We believe that the legend is sufficiently clear for readers.

The legend for Figure 14 indicates proportions, yet the displayed numbers are percentages.

Answer: Thank you for this pertinent remark. However, the caption does not refer to proportions, but indicates the use of Pearson's chi-square test (X²), applied to assess the association between the type of plantation (peasant or state) and the ecological temperament of the species.

References 13, 14, and 63 are formatted differently than the others. Reference 16 requires a review as it is missing certain information.

Answer: References 13, 14, 16, and 63 have been revised and reformatted to ensure consistency with the bibliographic style used throughout the manuscript. Missing elements in reference 16 have been added.

We thank you again for your valuable contribution to improving our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf