Invasion of Sicyos angulatus in Riparian Habitats in the Jiu and Danube Area (Romania)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

The presented research topic might be interesting for a large group of recipients, especially those dealing with the issue of biological invasions. However, the manuscript sent for review requires corrections and additions that will increase its readability and facilitate reception/understanding. 

Please consider correcting/clarifying some of the terms used and refer to more widely accepted terminology in the field of invasion ecology.

 

How should the term "incidental" (lines 35-36) be understood - is it a not-established (not-naturalised/casual) species?

 

"systematization period" (line 106) and "systematization work" (line 115) – the terms may not be understandable to the readers - please specify/explain.

 

You use the term “degree of aggressiveness” (line 389) - how should it be understood/measured?

 

Please consider replacing some used terms such as: “formidable opponent”, “formidable foe” or “one mission: conquest and colonization” with others related to those more widely used in scientific studies in the field of biological invasions.

In addition, the whole sentence: Anastasiu and Negrean [4] identified 435 alien 34 species in the Romanian flora (131 naturalized, 304 incidental) and 384 neophytes (35 naturalized, 271 incidental and 1 cover species) - not clear. Please reword.

 

The text from lines 73 to 79 contains general statements that are not related to the analyzed species. Please reword.

The sentence in lines 184-185 seems to be incorrectly constructed in terms of how sources are cited. Please verify it concerning the publisher's requirements.

I have doubts regarding the adopted scale of the number/density of Sycios plants in an area of 1 m². Can more than 500 shoots grow per 1 m² - how were they counted?

It is not clear what the description in the first paragraphs of chapter 3.2 refers to. Please clarify.

Figure 7 requires additions - both the figure caption and the description of the axis.

Figure 8 and Table 2 require clarification of the description (mainly the title/caption). 

A similar remark applies to figures 9 and 10.

I added other detailed comments and suggestions for corrections in the text file (please see attachment).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend performing a linguistic proofreading of the text, which will certainly improve its quality.

Author Response

We gratefully thank you for your appreciations and please accept our consideration for your comments towards our article. Based on your valuable observations, we made the changes you requested:

• For a better understanding at 35-35 rows we deleted the division of alien species remaining only their total number;
• Line 115 – we also deleted the terms "systematization period" and "systematization work" which in our language does not sound so badly as in English;
• Line 389 – we also deleted the term "degree of" and remains only aggressiveness which can be understood as very high number of Sicyos plants;
• As you requested we deleted the terms such as: "formidable opponent", "formidable foe" and "one mission: conquest and colonization"; We mention that and some figures shows that, in some areas the term colonization is correct;
• we also reworded some phrases and added the names of the authors cited at the beginning of the sentence;
• line 184-185 - we added the name of the authors used in the modality of the determination of plant communities;
• you are right. It can not be more than 500 shoots per 1 m². First, it was numbered the plants per 1 m² and then reported per hectare; so it should be 10000 m²;
• Chapter 3.2 refers to the statistical calculations made for the determination of the invasive capacity of Sicyos into the researched areas: two for each areas – into the shadow holm and clearings; into the Jiu river shadow and clearings and Danube river shore: shadow and clearings: as it is indicated into the figures.
• For all figures presented into the 3.2 chapter, all the calculations made were for Sicyos species;
• There were some suggestions which were not made because there were in contradiction with the opinion of the other referent.

 

 

We hope that after making these changes, the text will be understandable to as many readers as possible and meet your requirements.

 

Thank you again for your valuable observations!

 

I'm sure there's always room for better!

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is generally a well researched article, but there are still some areas that need to be revised. The suggestions are as follows:

 

1. There are still too many outdated references that need to be updated.

2. Metaphors such as "unruly rebels of the botanical world" can grab the reader's attention, but sometimes over-the-top metaphors can be misleading or detract from the professionalism of the text.

3. The words "Jiu and Olt" in the third paragraph of the section on the study area are not explained in the preceding text, which is somewhat confusing to the reader. Please write the abbreviations in the appropriate places above.

4. The Materials and Methods section has only one heading for the study area; the Research Methods section requires a separate heading. Be sure to include only the necessary geographic and topographic information, and avoid excessive detail and description that may confuse or unnecessarily burden the reader.

5. Several citations in the article must be written in point of view and then labeled with a reference, which should not be used directly as an object. Such as “which was based 182 on the principles and methods elaborated by [26]. ”“For the cenotaxonomic classification, we used the following synthesis papers: [27, 28,29] 184 as well as other recent belonging to the authors: [30, 31, 32]. ”

6. The first paragraph of the Results section reads“Salicetum albae Issler 1924 (Syn. Salicetum albae-fragilis Issler 1926 em Soó 1957) (Table 1). ”This sentence is confusing.

7. In your post you mention "Aggressiveness and the high~study areas."“Being of North~of this region.”These statements seems more appropriate for the discussion section, as it refers to the interpretation and possible implications of the results, not just the results themselves.

8.“The climate changes of recent years~this species registering a very high abundance-dominance.”Please provide appropriate references.

9. The meaning of the last paragraph of the discussion section is unclear."This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex."

Author Response

We gratefully thank you for your appreciations and please accept our consideration for your comments towards our article. Based on your valuable observations, we made the changes you requested:

• We deleted the metaphors such as "unruly rebels of the botanical world";
• We made the changes for several citations who were not correctly cited; Sorry.
• the observation referring to the paraghraph of the Results section is correct from phytosociological point of view;
• we also reworded some phrases and added the names of the authors cited at the beginning of the sentence or those used for cenotaxonomic classification;
• we replaced some words: installation with establishment (row 262); conservative with nature conservation (row 258); Figure 9. Was renamed in Interpretation of the analysis of variance for the analyzed characteristics of the Sicyos species (row 352).
• Row 386 – we deleted the term meadow and remained only forest habitat;
• Row 389 – deleted the term "degree of" and remains only aggressiveness, although this term was initial used referring to the higher number of Sicyos

There were some suggestions which were not made because there were in contradiction with the opinion of the other referent.

 

We hope that after making these changes, the text will be understandable to as many readers as possible and meet your requirements.

 

Thank you again for your valuable observations!

 

I'm sure there's always room for better!

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

I accept the changes made, but in my opinion, the manuscript still needs some improvements (see file). For example: a fragment of the text in the introduction, from lines 66-79, is not sufficiently related to the subject of research - I suggest adapting it to better justify the need for the research undertaken.

Presumably, language correction would have a positive impact on the final quality of the text.  

Kind regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you again for your recommendations and please accept our consideration for your comments towards the article.

In this revision it was made some changes in the abstract.

It was deleted the terms "noxious weed" and "exotic species" so that the reader to understand better what we are trying to say and how they understand and assess the invasive phenomenon.

We also deleted the parts you considered not to be proper for the subject (those color-coded) and made some corrections in the text, pointed in some places/specific points.

We tried to make all the necessary modification and hope we succeed!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made appropriate revisions in response to all suggestions. This article is very well researched and we thank you for your contribution to science and the article can be accepted.

Author Response

Thank you again for your recommendations and please accept our consideration for your comments towards the article.

In this revision it was made some changes in the abstract.

It was deleted the terms "noxious weed" and "exotic species" so that the reader to understand better what we are trying to say and how they understand and assess the invasive phenomenon.

We also deleted the parts you considered not to be proper for the subject (those color-coded) and made some corrections in the text, pointed in some places/specific points.

We tried to make all the necessary modification and hope we succeed!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx