Functional Traits and Local Environmental Conditions Determine Tropical Rain Forest Types at Microscale Level in Southern Ecuador
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors of "Functional traits and local environment conditions determine tropical rain forest types at microscale level in southern Ecuador",
Your manuscript requires major revisions before considering for publication.
In particular,
1) Your abstract must be improved. It includes irrelevant information and phrases for an abstract that must go to the point.
2) Your introduction need to motivate why do we need a classification that is based on structural parameters.
3) You must clearle define and label your variables. It is time-cosnuming to try to figure them out.
4) Improve the description of your methods. Be clear about methodological decisions.
5) Link your explanation of methodological decision with your discussion.
6) very important: you need to make sure that an English-native reads your manuscript. As a Spanish speaker, you use too many commas, and sentences that are not gramatically correct in English.
Looking forward to reading your revised manuscript.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REWIEVER 1
Dear authors of "Functional traits and local environment conditions determine tropical rain forest types at microscale level in southern Ecuador",
Your manuscript requires major revisions before considering for publication.
In particular,
- Your abstract must be improved. It includes irrelevant information and phrases for an abstract that must go to the point.
We have made the suggested changes to the abstract, based on your suggestion and that of other reviewers.
- Your introduction need to motivate why do we need a classification that is based on structural parameters.
The changes have been made according to your suggestion
- You must clearle define and label your variables. It is time-costuming to try to figure them out.
The name of the variables and their acronyms were homogenized throughout the manuscript, in tables and graphs throughout the manuscript.
- Improve the description of your methods. Be clear about methodological decisions.
The changes have been made according to your suggestion
- Link your explanation of methodological decision with your discussion.
The changes have been made according to your suggestion
- very important: you need to make sure that an English-native reads your manuscript. As a Spanish speaker, you use too many commas, and sentences that are not gramatically correct in English.
The final version of the manuscript was reviewed by a native Englishman who made the necessary corrections in the language.
Looking forward to reading your revised manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
A good paper, but I think a few changes might improve it.
1) in the abstract you talk about 15ha, the inference I made was that 15ha was a single block, it was only later that I realised that you had 52 plot (10 + 16 + 16) and as these are spread over an elevation range of 300 meters I ended up a bit confused. Are your 52 plots more or less adjacent to each other or are are they spread out over a wider area? a sketch of the site showing the relative position of the 52 plots in relation to elevation would be helpful.
2) I note from your discussion that you did not include topographic position, but if "ridge" and "valley" are good descriptors of the vegetation communities then I think elevation is just a surrogate for something like exposure which would affect micro-climate more than a relatively small change in elevation.
3) I think a "sketch" of the layout of the 4th corner / missing corner issue might make the text description clearer.
More minor issues
4) in Table 1 I would order the guild to shade, partial shade, partial light, light
5) Figure 4 strongly suggests to me that exposure is an issue for the "ridge" communities, but without location data this is just a supposition.
6) Figure 4 (which should be Figure 6, line 404) has DBH in both rows and columns, with the inference that they are not correlated - I find this hard to understand.
7) is reference 47 complete?
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REWIEVER 1
1) in the abstract you talk about 15ha, the inference I made was that 15ha was a single block, it was only later that I realised that you had 52 plot (10 + 16 + 16) and as these are spread over an elevation range of 300 meters, I ended up a bit confused. Are your 52 plots more or less adjacent to each other or are they spread out over a wider area? a sketch of the site showing the relative position of the 52 plots in relation to elevation would be helpful.
Line 80: A schematic figure of blocks and plot location has been included as suggested, site q5 is +/- 0.5 km from site q3 and site q2 +/- 1.5 km.
2) I note from your discussion that you did not include topographic position, but if "ridge" and "valley" are good descriptors of the vegetation communities then I think elevation is just a surrogate for something like exposure which would affect micro-climate more than a relatively small change in elevation.
We believe that as corroborated by the analysis, the altitude is predominant, most of the plots in both groups or types of forest are located mainly on relatively undulating terrain, due to the experience we have in this type of ecosystem, topography as a variable. works in smaller sampling units, which we did not measure in this research
3) I think a "sketch" of the layout of the 4th corner / missing corner issue might make the text description clearer.
The design of the four corners is detailed in the methodology, we think that it is a fairly clear analysis and here the special thing about the analysis is the incorporation of the functional traits of the species to corroborate the division of the forests into more differentiated ecological units.
More minor issues
4) in Table 1 I would order the guild to shade, partial shade, partial light, light
Line 121: Parameters were reordered as suggested.
5) Figure 4 strongly suggests to me that exposure is an issue for the "ridge" communities, but without location data this is just a supposition.
Because we have not measured the topographic variable of exposure or landform, we cannot include it in the analysis to corroborate or deny this statement.
6) Figure 4 (which should be Figure 6, line 404) has DBH in both rows and columns, with the inference that they are not correlated - I find this hard to understand.
Line 402: The data located in the columns corresponds to the average DBH/ha, which is a variable influenced by altitude, and in the rows, the dbh corresponds to the average of the species.
7) is reference 47 complete?
Line 586: The reference was completed, actually it was not complete.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Review manuscript
I have completed the paper's review and my comments are provided in the following lines.
General comments
The first general comment is referred to the language style. There are many problems with the language across the text. I have also detected some issues with the statistical analysis, which need to be rectified. I also suggest the authors re-write the discussion part. Large changes in the structure of the manuscript are also recommended in order to allow readers a clear view.
Specific comments
Abstract
- The abstract must be shortened to 200 words maximum according to the journal’s instructions
- L19 I suggest explaining the DBH abbreviation.
- L21-23 Please, improve the expression
Introduction
- L32-38 Please, improve the expression.
- L50 I suggest replacing the “model” word.
- L62 I suggest using the following style for reference [14]: “Sierra [14] describes …”
- L64-72 Please, check the expression. In addition, “obeys” is not a valid expression.
Materials and methods
- L97-98 How those plots were selected? Please, explain. It is very important for the statistical validity of the results.
- L99 Why only trees with diameters larger than 20 cm were measured? Is it a measure of competition status?
- L107 How the canopy opening was estimated? In addition, I suggest explaining these attributes (briefly). It is ok with me, but a great part of the Journal’s audience is unfamiliar with the specific variables.
- L129 and 131 I think that it is “species”. Please, revise.
- L185 Why the Spearman coefficient correlation was selected? Please explain.
- L189-193 I think that this part is a repetition.
- L196-198 Please, improve the expression.
Results
- L245-248 Please improve the expression.
- Table 2 I suggest the “Dbh” in capital letters
- L290 Did selective thinning affect the stand parameters, for example, canopy closure?
- L302-349 I suggest using a table to incorporate this information. It is really hard for a reader to follow.
- Figure 5 and the associated conclusions. This part is referred to the obtained sample. If the authors wish to generalize their conclusions, a statistical test is needed (for example t-test, etc.). This part needs additional statistical analysis.
- L375 Where is the DBH distribution? I cannot find the mentioned J-shape.
- L382-386 Please improve the expression
- Figure 4 and table 3 Please, explain the abbreviations. In addition, please explain the “Test” column.
Discussion
In this part, the authors failed to provide the biological realism behind their findings. For example, it is very important to explain the trends found in figure 4. Why the effect of altitude is different in valleys and ridges? Why altitude affects density? And so on with other findings as well. This part is completely missing from the discussion part and I recommend re-writing this section.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REWIEVER 3
General comments
The first general comment is referred to the language style. There are many problems with the language across the text. I have also detected some issues with the statistical analysis, which need to be rectified. I also suggest the authors re-write the discussion part. Large changes in the structure of the manuscript are also recommended in order to allow readers a clear view.
Specific comments
Abstract
The abstract must be shortened to 200 words maximum according to the journal’s instructions.
The abstract was adjusted to the maximum number of words required by the journal.
L19: I suggest explaining the DBH abbreviation.
L19: The change was made according to request.
L21-23 Please, improve the expression.
L21-23: The paragraph was rewritten as suggested.
Introduction
L32-38: Please, improve the expression.
L32-38: The paragraph was rewritten as suggested, to improve the idea.
L50: I suggest replacing the “model” word.
L50: The change was made according to request.
L62 I suggest using the following style for reference [14]: “Sierra [14] describes …”
L62: The change was made according to request.
L64-72 Please, check the expression. In addition, “obeys” is not a valid expression.
L64-72: The paragraph was rewritten as suggested.
Materials and methods
L97-98 How those plots were selected? Please, explain. It is very important for the statistical validity of the results.
L97-98: The sites to install the plots were chosen after carrying out a previous forest inventory through consecutive transects of 100 x 5 meters (500 m2) that preliminarily served to analyze the composition and structure of each block. Each block is within a hydrographic micro-basin, each one being independent of the other at a spatial level and at an altitudinal level.
L99 Why only trees with diameters larger than 20 cm were measured? Is it a measure of competition status?
Tree species of 5-19 cm DBH were also included in the analysis, sampled in an internal plot of 144m2.
L107 How the canopy opening was estimated? In addition, I suggest explaining these attributes (briefly). It is ok with me, but a great part of the Journal’s audience is unfamiliar with the specific variables.
L107: It was explained how the canopy opening was calculated and a brief definition of the canopy openness.
L129 and 131 I think that it is “species”. Please, revise.
L129-131: The change was made according to request.
L185 Why the Spearman coefficient correlation was selected? Please explain.
It was chosen due to the nature and normality of the data involved in the correlations.
L189-193 I think that this part is a repetition.
L189-193: The change was made according to request.
L196-198 Please, improve the expression.
L196-198: The change was made according to request.
Results
L245-248 Please improve the expression.
L245-248: The paragraph was rewritten as suggested.
Table 2 I suggest the “Dbh” in capital letters
Table 2: The change was made according to request.
L290 Did selective thinning affect the stand parameters, for example, canopy closure?
L290: For the purposes of this work, the implementation of selective thinning has no effect since it was implemented after the state of the vegetation described and analyzed here. We prefer to delete the sentence because it decontextualizes the paragraph.
L302-349 I suggest using a table to incorporate this information. It is really hard for a reader to follow.
L302-349: The change was made according to request.
Figure 5 and the associated conclusions. This part is referred to the obtained sample. If the authors wish to generalize their conclusions, a statistical test is needed (for example t-test, etc.). This part needs additional statistical analysis.
The function of the four corners analysis is precisely that, to perform all the correlations regardless of the type of variable that is incorporated into the analysis, including functional traits. We believe that the analysis that you suggest is not outside of the analyzes that the four corner performs.
L375 Where is the DBH distribution? I cannot find the mentioned J-shape.
L375: Figure 5 shows the diameter distribution to which reference is made; it has been cited in the main text.
L382-386 Please improve the expression.
L382-386: The change was made according to request.
Figure 4 and table 3 Please, explain the abbreviations. In addition, please explain the “Test” column.
The names of the labels of the graph columns were changed so that they are consistent with the table in the methods chapter where the nature and ranges of the variables used in the analyzes are explained.
The test column in table 6 refers to the statistic that is used to correlate the traits with the environmental variables. You can use Pearson, pseudo-F, Chi square or another statistic according to the nature of the variables. This is explained in the methodology chapter.
Discussion
In this part, the authors failed to provide the biological realism behind their findings. For example, it is very important to explain the trends found in figure 4. Why the effect of altitude is different in valleys and ridges? Why altitude affects density? And so on with other findings as well. This part is completely missing from the discussion part and I recommend re-writing this section.
Parts of the discussion that were less clear and were also pointed out by other reviewers were rewritten. I hope they meet the minimum to be
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thanks for the efforts incorporating my comments.
Best
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have followed the recommended changes and the manuscript has substantially improved
