Drought-Resilience in Mexican Drylands: Integrative C4 Grasses and Forage Shrubs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lots of great information in this paper all in one place and synthesized together fairly well for manager decision making. No new content needs to be added but I think some significant organization should occur to make this easier to read.

Methods:

• Why the first 200 hits?
• Why start the review at 1950?
• What are biophysically comparable North American drylands?

 

Section 3. ‘Ecological and Productive Challenges in Mexican Arid and Semi‑Arid Grasslands’ seems like it would belong better in the intro (before the methods)

Seems like the results start at 4? Clarify that these are the outcomes of the review. But, section 4.1 doesn’t appear to necessarily be part of the results (nor 4.2)? The results should immediately follow the methods.

Add common name of Trichloris crinite

What is ‘The portfolio’ (line 185)? I think it was brought up in the intro but remind the reader.

More organization in presenting the results is needed. Sometimes results are summarized in paragraph format and sometimes in in-text table format that seem like an outline (e.g. page 5).

Is table 1 a result? If and how this information was pulled out of each paper was not clarified in the methods.

Many of the results found are known patterns in most (if not all) dryland systems (e.g. most of 4.4). Highlight what is new, and what is similar to other systems and why.

Subheadings need work. They need to be consistently formatted, numbered correctly (e.g. 4.5.1 Row/patch geometry (by shrub type)?) and bolded (or however the journal requires them to be presented). As they are presented now (unbolded and in text indented), they are very hard to differentiate from text.

Environmental fit organization for shrubs is different than for grasses.

Description of what is the Resistance–Recovery– Persistence framework should be more complete and described in the intro, not the results. Also, why aren’t species associated with each type in section 6?

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We appreciate the opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled “Drought-Resilient in Mexican Drylands: Integrative C4 Grasses and Forage Shrubs” (Manuscript ID: grasses-3939567), and we thank you and the reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments. We have carefully revised the entire paper to address all concerns. All modifications appear in track changes in the revised manuscript.

Following the editorial checklist:

Relevance of references: All citations were reviewed to ensure they directly support the content presented.

Revisions highlighted: All changes in the revised manuscript are clearly marked using the Track Changes function so that editors and reviewers can easily verify modifications.

Point-by-point response: A detailed document responding to each reviewer comment is included. For every point, we describe the revision applied or provide an explanation when clarification was sufficient.

Evaluation of suggested references: Any references recommended by reviewers were critically assessed. Only those that added conceptual or empirical value to the work were incorporated.

Comments that could not be addressed: All reviewer comments were fully addressed. None required dismissal; however, in the few cases where interpretive clarification was more appropriate than a structural change, we have explained this in the detailed response document.

As requested, the manuscript has been substantially improved. Major revisions include:

A more explicit justification of the methodological decisions (search limits, databases, screening criteria, and definition of comparable drylands).

Reorganization of the Results to ensure they follow immediately after the Methods and clearly represent the outcomes of the review.

Integration of the Resistance–Recovery–Persistence framework into the Introduction, with clarified conceptual definitions.

Harmonization of subheadings, numbering, and formatting across all sections.

Consolidation and clarification of the environmental-fit sections for grasses and shrubs to ensure structural consistency.

Revision of Tables to clarify whether information was extracted directly from reviewed studies and how this process was described in Methods.

Enhanced distinction between well-known dryland patterns and the novel, Mexico-specific insights emerging from this synthesis.

We believe the revised version now meets the journal’s scientific, methodological, and presentation standards. We sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable feedback, which significantly strengthened the manuscript.

Below, we provide a point-by-point response detailing how each comment was addressed. In cases where line numbers shifted due to structural revisions, we provide the exact section or subsection where the change was implemented.

 

Reviewer Comment 1: “Why the first 200 hits?”

Response: Thank you for this observation. We agree with the reviewer and have clarified the rationale for screening only the first 200 hits per query. We added an explanation stating that the 200-record cap follows established narrative-review practice to balance relevance and workload, and that a pilot test showed diminishing returns beyond ~150–200 records. We also note that recall was safeguarded by using multiple complementary queries across databases and by applying backward/forward snowballing.

Manuscript change: Added: “Search results in each database were sorted by relevance, and we screened the first 200 hits per query. This ceiling follows common narrative-review practice to capture the most relevant, high-impact records while maintaining a manageable screening volume. A pilot pass showed diminishing returns beyond ~150–200 records per query. To minimize omission risk, we issued complementary query formulations across databases and per-formed backward/forward snowballing from all included papers.”

Change implemented in: Page 3-4, lines from 136 to 147.

 

Reviewer Comment 2: “Why start the review at 1950?”

(Note: Although the reviewer refers to 1950, the manuscript uses 1990–2025; therefore clarification of the chosen temporal range was needed.)

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We narrowed and justified the temporal window as 1990–2025 (rather than 1950), because methodologically comparable dryland/forage studies for Mexico become consistent from the early 1990s onward.

Manuscript change: Added explanatory sentence: “The temporal range was selected because systematic and methodologically comparable studies on forage ecology, dryland restoration, and functional traits in Mexican arid and semi-arid systems only began to appear consistently after the early 1990s.”

Change implemented in: Page 3, lines 134 to 136.

 

Reviewer comment 3: “What are biophysically comparable North American drylands?”

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have now clarified what is meant by “biophysically comparable North American drylands.” In the revised manuscript, we specify that these include dryland regions sharing similar aridity indices (AI < 0.5), low annual precipitation (< 400 mm), dominant C4 grass–shrub vegetation types, and comparable soil–climate constraints. To ensure transparency, we explicitly name the main reference ecoregions used for comparison: the Chihuahuan Desert, Sonoran Desert, and southern Great Basin. This added definition clarifies the geographic and ecological scope of the studies included in the review.

Manuscript change: “defined here as arid and semi-arid regions with similar aridity indices (AI < 0.5), annual precipitation below 400 mm, and vegetation dominated by C4 perennial grasses and xerophytic shrubs—including the Chihuahuan Desert, Sonoran Desert, and southern Great Basin”

Change implemented in: Page 4, lines 165-169.

 

Reviewer Comment 4: “Section 3. ‘Ecological and Productive Challenges in Mexican Arid and Semi-Arid Grasslands’ seems like it would belong better in the intro (before the methods).”

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that the contextual information in Section 3 is more appropriate as part of the Introduction. We have therefore relocated the entire section to the end of the Introduction and added a brief transition sentence to improve narrative flow. This adjustment clarifies the problem setting and strengthens the rationale for conducting the review.

Manuscript change: Section 1.1 created; former Section 3 removed from Methods adjacency.

Change implemented in: page 2-3, lines 84-126.

 

Reviewer Comment 5: “Seems like the results start at 4? Clarify that these are the outcomes of the review. But section 4.1 doesn’t appear to necessarily be part of the results (nor 4.2)? The results should immediately follow the methods.”

Response: Thank you for this helpful observation. We relabeled and opened Section 3 as Results: Synthesized Evidence From the Reviewed Studies, and added an orienting first paragraph stating explicitly that these are the outcomes of the review. Subsections 3.x now cover grasses; shrubs are in Section 4.

Manuscript change: New lead-in paragraph at the start of Results clarifying scope; sections renumbered so Results follows Methods without intervening material.

Change implemented in: Section 3 Headnote and restructuring of 3.1–3.5. Pages 5 to 9, lines 198-502.

 

Reviewer Comment 6: “Add common name of Trichloris crinite.”

Response: Thank you for this observation. We have added the common name of Trichloris crinita at its first occurrence in the Results section and in the species portfolio subsection.

Manuscript change: “…Trichloris crinita (false Rhodes grass)…”

Change implemented in: page 5, line 211; and Page 7, Table 1.

 

Reviewer Comment 7: “What is ‘The portfolio’ (line 185)? I think it was brought up in the intro but remind the reader.”

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have clarified the meaning of “the portfolio” by adding a brief reminder at its first mention in the Results section. The revised text now specifies that “the species portfolio” refers to the group of native grasses identified as functionally complementary and suitable for drought-resilient forage systems in Mexican drylands.

Manuscript change: Added clarifying sentence at the start of “Portfolio of Native Grasses”: “The portfolio—that is, the set of functionally complementary native grasses identified as priority candidates for drought-resilient forage systems—.”

Change implemented in: Page 5, lines 240-241.

 

Reviewer Comment 8: “More organization in presenting the results is needed. Sometimes results are summarized in paragraph format and sometimes in in-text table format that seem like an outline (e.g., page 5).”

Response: Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree that the presentation of the results required greater consistency. To address this, we standardized presentation: concise narrative paragraphs plus formal tables only when they synthesize multi-study attributes. Bulleted/outline-like lists were converted to prose or moved into tables.

Manuscript change: We rewrote several subsections into unified paragraph form and eliminated outline-like formatting. All species-specific lists were transformed into full sentences or placed in tables for coherence.

Change implemented throughout the document. All modifications are clearly visible in the Track Changes version of the manuscript.

 

Reviewer Comment 9:

“Is Table 1 a result? If and how this information was pulled out of each paper was not clarified in the methods.”

Response: Thank you for this important comment. We clarified in the Methods that Table 1 compiles species-level traits and management attributes extracted directly from included studies or from authoritative species syntheses with explicit source tracing. Only traits consistently reported across multiple studies were retained.

Manuscript change: Section 2 – Screening and Extraction.

Change implemented in: Page 4, lines 178-187.

 

Reviewer Comment 10:

“Many of the results found are known patterns in most (if not all) dryland systems (e.g., most of 4.4). Highlight what is new, and what is similar to other systems and why.”

Response: Thank you for this insightful comment. We inserted bridging sentences that flag which findings mirror global dryland patterns and which are region-specific/novel (e.g., salinity-structured responses, ecotype-level seed-source guidance, procurement/PLS adoption levers).

Manuscript change: We added bridging sentences throughout the Results indicating where patterns mirror other North American drylands (Chihuahuan, Sonoran, Patagonian) and where findings reflect distinct Mexican conditions.

Changes implemented in: Sections 3.3, 4.1, 4.4.

 

Reviewer Comment 11: “Subheadings need work. They need to be consistently formatted, numbered correctly (e.g. 4.5.1 Row/patch geometry (by shrub type)?) and bolded (or however the journal requires them to be presented). As they are presented now (unbolded and in text indented), they are very hard to differentiate from text.”

Response: Thank you for this important comment. Implemented throughout. We standardized hierarchical numbering (e.g., 4.5.1, 4.5.2, 4.5.3, 4.5.4), applied bold style to subheads, and removed inline/indented pseudo-heads by converting them to running text with linking transitions.

Manuscript change: Global formatting/renumbering edits completed.

Changes implemented in: Sections 3 and 4.

 

Reviewer Comment 12: “Environmental fit organization for shrubs is different than for grasses.”

Response: Thank you for this insightful comment. Reorganized for parallelism. Grasses (Section 3) and shrubs (Section 4) now use the same logic: functional roles/forage value → species portfolio → establishment/seed systems → spatial/grazing rules → environmental fit (site-matching matrix and decision rules).

Manuscript change: Sections 4.1-4.6 “Environmental fit” structured to mirror 3.x; added decision-rule paragraph without sub-subtitles.

Changes implemented in: All Section 4.

 

Reviewer Comment 13: “Description of what is the Resistance–Recovery– Persistence framework should be more complete and described in the intro, not the results. Also, why aren’t species associated with each type in section 6?”

Response: We added a complete explanation of the R–R–P framework in the Introduction and clarified how it is used interpretively. We also added a paragraph in Section 6 explaining why species are not classified strictly by R–R–P categories, avoiding misleading oversimplification and tying species contributions to site-matching and trait groups.

Manuscript change: Section 1. “Drought resilience in rangeland systems can be mechanistically interpreted through a resistance–recovery–persistence framework widely used in dryland ecology. Resistance refers to the capacity of vegetation to maintain structure and function—including forage production, cover, and nutritive value—during water deficits or grazing pressure. Recovery describes the rate and extent to which plants or swards regain biomass, cover, and functional integrity following disturbance or drought. Persistence represents long-term survival and the ability to maintain populations and ecosystem functions across multiple drought cycles, reflecting traits such as deep rooting, dormancy capacity, protected meristems, and stable recruitment. Together, this framework provides a coherent lens for evaluating native grasses and forage shrubs in Mexican drylands, because species contribute differently to short-term resistance under rain-use stress, to seasonal or post-drought recovery, and to multi-year persistence under grazing and climatic variability. In this review, we use this framework to interpret species portfolios and management options rather than as the primary axis of organization, because functional traits and site-matching are the dominant drivers of suitability across Mexico’s heterogeneous arid and semi-arid landscapes.”

Changes implemented in: Page 2, lines 59-74. Section 6, opening paragraph.

 

We believe the revised manuscript is substantially improved thanks to the reviewers’ insights. We hope the revisions meet the journal’s expectations and look forward to your response.

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Héctor Gutiérrez-Bañuelos

Corresponding Author

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the paper manuscript, entitled “Drought-Resilient in Mexican Drylands: Integrative C4 Grasses and Forage Shrubs”

The manuscript brings a comprehensive and well-structured review of native C4 grasses and forage shrubs as key components of drought-resilient livestock systems in Mexico’s drylands. The integration of ecological, physiological, and management perspectives is very good, and the practical operational guidance such as seed quality, pure live seeds specifications, timing – intensity – distribution – duration grazing framework is especially valuable. Some parts of the study are organized in text and tables as well, particularly description of forage grasses and forage shrubs. To contrary, seed systems are described only in the text what reduce the clarity of review. So, the review needs a minor revision. Some specific comments are as follows.

Abstract

I would recommend to spell out “TIDD” and “PLS” on first mention in the abstract.

Introduction good organized and provides sufficient background to the manuscript topic. 

Material and methods

The paper misses methodological transparency. The literature search section is very detailed, but it would benefit from a prisma flow diagram of systematic review process or a table summarizing the number of records screened and retained per category (C4 grasses, shrubs, management studies). This would make the review more systematic and reproducible.

Adoption & seed systems / policy alignment

The text mentions seed quality, procurement, and extension gaps, but there is little quantitative or institutional analysis. I would recommend to add a concise table or figure summarizing current Mexican policy instruments (e.g., SNICS, LFPCCS) and their bottlenecks.

Similarly, the Resistance–Recovery–Persistence framework is strong but described only textually. A simple conceptual diagram would significantly enhance reader comprehension.

The Research Gaps Agenda structure is useful; the text remains overly technical and occasionally reads like a methods proposal rather than a synthesized research agenda. Sharper prioritization and clearer narrative links would strengthen the section’s strategic value.

Conclusions

The conclusions are comprehensive and provide strong, practice-oriented recommendations; however, they remain overly detailed and include information that would be better placed in the main text. A more concise synthesis with clearer emphasis on evidence strength versus knowledge gaps would improve readability.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation and for the constructive comments that helped strengthen the manuscript. All revisions have been incorporated and are visible in track changes. Our detailed responses follow.

1. Abstract — “I would recommend to spell out “TIDD” and “PLS” on first mention in the abstract.”

Response: Revised as suggested. The terms Timing–Intensity–Distribution–Duration (TIDD) and Pure Live Seed (PLS) are now spelled out upon first appearance in the Abstract.

Change implemented in: Abstract. Page 1. Lines 25, 26.

2. Material and Methods — The paper misses methodological transparency. The literature search section is very detailed, but it would benefit from a prisma flow diagram of systematic review process or a table summarizing the number of records screened and retained per category (C4 grasses, shrubs, management studies). This would make the review more systematic and reproducible.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We added a screening summary table reporting identification, screening, exclusion with reasons, and final inclusion (Table 1). Because this review integrates overlapping domains (grasses × shrubs × management), a full PRISMA diagram would impose artificial categorical boundaries. The summary table provides methodological transparency and replicability while remaining faithful to the integrative nature of the review.

Change implemented in: Methods section (new Table 1). Page 5 and 6. Lines 199-204.

3. Adoption & seed systems/policy alignment —

Reviewer comment: recommended to add a concise policy table

Response: We added a new policy summary table outlining SNICS, LFPCCS, and related instruments, along with their main bottlenecks and implications for scaling native-seed systems.

Change implemented in: Section 6 (new Table 7). Page 21. Lines 1915.

Reviewer comment: Similarly, the Resistance–Recovery–Persistence framework is strong but described only textually. A simple conceptual diagram would significantly enhance reader comprehension.

Response: We agree that a visual representation strengthens clarity. We added a concise conceptual diagram (Figure 1) that summarizes the three components of the R–R–P framework (resistance, recovery, persistence) and the functional and management drivers associated with each. This figure complements the expanded explanation inserted in the Introduction and provides a clear interpretive lens for the rest of the review.

Change implemented in: Section 1 (Conceptual framing) and new Figure 1. Page 3. Lines 85.

Reviewer comment: The Research Gaps Agenda structure is useful; the text remains overly technical and occasionally reads like a methods proposal rather than a synthesized research agenda. Sharper prioritization and clearer narrative links would strengthen the section’s strategic value.

Response: Thank you for this valuable observation. We fully revised the Research Gaps and Priority Agenda section to remove methodological or protocol-style content and recast the entire section as a concise, strategic research agenda. The new version avoids experimental details, emphasizes priority knowledge gaps, and provides clearer narrative links between each gap and its relevance to drought-resilient forage systems in Mexican drylands. The section now highlights why each gap matters, what type of evidence is missing, and how future research can address these limitations, rather than specifying experimental designs. We believe this revision substantially improves readability and aligns the agenda with the reviewer’s recommendation.

Change implemented in: Section 7. Research Gaps and Priority Agenda rewritten for conceptual clarity, prioritization, and strategic focus. Page 22. Lines 1920-1959.

4. Conclusions

Reviewer comment: The conclusions are comprehensive and provide strong, practice-oriented recommendations; however, they remain overly detailed and include information that would be better placed in the main text. A more concise synthesis with clearer emphasis on evidence strength versus knowledge gaps would improve readability.

Response: Thank you for this constructive recommendation. We substantially revised the Conclusions section to improve conciseness, remove detail that properly belongs in the main text, and sharpen the distinction between well-supported evidence and remaining knowledge gaps. The revised version now synthesizes the central findings more succinctly, highlights evidence strength, and closes with a clearer statement of priority gaps and implications for future work. We believe this rewrite improves readability and aligns fully with the reviewer’s suggestion.

Change implemented in: Conclusions section rewritten and streamlined. Page 22-23. Lines 1960-2132.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very meaningful work. The authors analyzed a large amount of literature on the physiological characteristics, tissue structure, nutritional quality, and other comprehensive indicators of C4 grasses and forage shrubs in arid and semi-arid regions of Mexico, integrating them into a "Resistance–Recovery–Persistence framework" and translating them into operations. They also summarized the bottlenecks encountered in the operational process. This research can provide very important guidance for grassland management in arid and semi-arid regions of Mexico, especially in responding to drought caused by climate change. However, some parts of the paper's structure still need adjustment.

1.Introduction

2.Methods (literature search and synthesis)

3.Ecological and Productive Challenges in Mexican Arid and Semi‑Arid Grasslands

4.Functional Characteristics and Complementarity of Drought-Resistant Plant Resources (New Chapter, Merging and Reorganizing Core Elements)

4.1 Native C4 Grasses: Drought Resistance Basis and Seasonal Nutrition

(Integrates content from sections 4.1-4.4, focusing on their function as the system's "skeleton")

4.2 Pasture Grasses and Shrubs: Bridges in the Dry Season and Ecosystem Engineers

(Integrates content from sections 5.1-5.3, focusing on their supplementary role and management of anti-nutritional compounds)

4.3 Ecological Basis of Grass-Shrub Assemblages: Functional Complementarity and Resource Island Effect

(The principles of spatial allocation and facilitation vs. competition from sections 5.4 and 5.5 are moved here to provide a theoretical basis for the subsequent management framework)

5.Building a Management Framework for Drought-Resistant Grasslands: From Theory to Practice (New Chapter, Integrating Core Operational Elements)

5.1 Core Framework: Resistance - Resilience - Durability

(Originally Chapter 6, now serving as the overarching concept for this chapter)

5.2 Spatial Configuration and Planting Design

(Integrating specific operational aspects from sections 5.4 and 5.5, such as row spacing and patch geometry)

5.3 Grazing Management

(Integrating the TIDD principle and specific rules from section 5.5)

5.4 Monitoring and Adaptive Management

(The monitoring indicator table from the original Chapter 7 is moved here as the final section of this chapter, reflecting the "Plan-Do-Check-Act" cycle)

6.Bottlenecks and Solutions in Promotion: Seed Systems and Policies

(Originally Chapter 8, excellent content, well-placed)

7.Research Gaps and Future Agenda

(Originally Chapter 9)

8Conclusion

 

 

Additionally, transitional sentences should be added at chapter transition points to make the text flow more smoothly.

Maintain consistent heading numbering: Ensure all section numbers are consistent and logically hierarchical. For example, the original manuscript had "5.5 Spatial configuration and grazing management" followed by sections like "4.5.1," etc.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #3

We thank the reviewer for the highly positive evaluation of the manuscript and for the detailed recommendations regarding structural organization. We have carefully considered each suggestion and implemented substantial revisions to improve clarity, hierarchy, and narrative flow throughout the paper. Below, we describe how the revised version addresses the reviewer’s concerns.

1. Overall structural reorganization

We appreciate the reviewer’s proposed restructured outline. While we did not adopt the recommended chapter sequence verbatim, we incorporated the underlying intent by reorganizing and consolidating sections, improving transitions, and ensuring a coherent hierarchy across all headings.

Specifically, we:

Reorganized sections to strengthen the progression from ecological context → functional traits → management design → seed systems → research gaps.

Ensured consistent heading numbering and logical hierarchical structure.

Improved the flow between major chapters by adding transitional sentences that clarify the conceptual bridges between topics.

These changes substantially improve readability and coherence while retaining the manuscript’s original logic and contributions.

2. Integration of functional traits and complementarity

In line with the reviewer’s suggestion, we strengthened the conceptual links between C4 grasses and forage shrubs and reorganized content to highlight functional complementarity. Ecological principles from previously dispersed sections were consolidated to create a more unified theoretical foundation that supports the later management framework.

3. Resistance–Recovery–Persistence (RRP) framework

The revised manuscript now introduces the RRP framework in the Introduction and integrates it more clearly across subsequent sections. We also added a conceptual diagram to illustrate the framework visually, as suggested by the reviewer. This enhances reader comprehension and strengthens the conceptual consistency of the manuscript.

4. Management framework and operational translation

We streamlined the transition from functional ecology to management design, ensuring that the principles of spatial configuration, grazing rules, and monitoring follow logically from the ecological foundation. This adjustment aligns with the reviewer’s request to strengthen the connection between theory and practice.

5. Monitoring and adaptive management

The monitoring indicators table was relocated to the management chapter to better reflect an applied, adaptive-grazing cycle (“Plan–Do–Check–Act”), in accordance with the reviewer’s recommendation.

6. Seed systems and policy

The section on seed systems and policy was retained in its original position but revised for improved coherence and alignment with the reorganized manuscript structure.

7. Overall improvements to transitions and numbering

We ensured that all headings follow a consistent hierarchical numbering format. Transitional sentences were added at major section boundaries to improve continuity and narrative flow.

Summary

Although the manuscript does not replicate the reviewer’s proposed structure exactly, we fully incorporated the intent behind the recommendations. The revised manuscript now presents:

A clearer conceptual sequence

Stronger transitions

More cohesive grouping of functional and management content

A consistent numbering system

Improved flow between theory and practical application

We believe these revisions significantly enhance clarity and readability, while preserving the integrity and originality of the review.

We thank the reviewer again for the valuable guidance, which considerably strengthened the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Excellent revision. All concerns addressed.